But it's particularly irritating to read NLRB Chairman Robert Battista characterize a stream of recent anti-labor decions as neither "pro-business or pro-union. I'd like to say they're pro-employee."
Oh, really? Pro employee? Do these actions sound "pro-employee" to you? For example,
- Denying nonunion employees the right to have a co-worker present when managers call them in for investigative or disciplinary meetings;
- Making it more difficult for temporary workers to unionize;
- Making it more difficult for unions to obtain financial information from companies during contract talks, even when the company claims that it is "in distress" and "fighting to stay alive"
- Ruling that graduate students working as teaching assistants do not have the right to unionize at private universities
Can someone explain to me how any of these Board decisions -- which in the words of AFL-CIO General Counsel Jonathan Hiatt "take away worker rights, deny workers protection in organizing and collective bargaining, and give employers more latitude" -- can be interpreted as "pro-employee?"
several cases that question the legitimacy of card checks, one of labor's most
successful tactics in adding members recently. In the procedure, companies agree
to grant union recognition after a majority of workers sign cards saying they
want a union. By agreeing to card checks, companies waive the right to hold a
secret ballot to determine whether workers favor organizing.
So come on guys, if you're going to be anti-union anti-worker, at least don't insult our intelligence.