New Bush-Appointed NLRB Could Cause Serious Damage to Labor Law (June 24, 2003)
Created by: Administrator,Last modification on 24 Jun 2003 [05:00 UTC]
By Cynthia Green
Yet another weapon in the Bush administration's anti-worker arsenal is the freshly packed National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the five-member body charged with enforcing federal labor laws.
The latest President Bush has only just finished staffing the now-Republican-dominated board, so blockbuster decisions have yet to be handed down. But the board is now dominated by appointees hostile to labor, so it's just a matter of time before the true Republican colors of the Bush NLRB come through.
Bush appointed all five current board members, including three Republicans, all of whom were confirmed by the Senate in December of 2002. Their terms are staggered, with one Republican's appointment expiring in August.
Already, the NLRB has shocked the labor community with its decision to support a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The business trade group seeks to strike down a California law preventing employers from using tax dollars for anti-union campaigns. The NLRB filed a friend-of-the-court brief backing the Chamber's position in the appellate court case.
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said the decision is "outrageous as it marks a sharp departure from the Board's primary mission of protecting workers' rights."
Nathan Newman, a lawyer at New York University law school's Brennan Center for Justice, said it's "quite remarkable" that the Bush-packed NLRB has taken a hypocritically anti-federalist stance against state law, one that practically mandates corporations to spend government grants and subsidies to fund union-busting.
"We're not even talking about a particularly draconian law," Newman said, noting that the current California statute does not prevent companies from spending their own money to fight unions.
"California's law simply protects taxpayers by making clear such uses of state funds – pro-union or anti-union – are unauthorized," Sweeney said.
Newman said the NLRB's intervention itself was notable. "They don't do that often, especially in a case that doesn't address a decision that they made," he said.
With the board now at full complement, momentum may build for employer-friendly verdicts. The labor community may soon face tinkering to or even reversals of Clinton-era decisions concerning graduate school organizing rights, employees' ability to discuss workplace issues over e-mail, representation of non-union employees, the status of temporary workers, and so-called "paycheck protection" issues, Newman said.
Carl Ver Beek, a Michigan-based management-side labor lawyer, said the decision "pendulum," particularly on certain key issues, tends to swing back and forth between administrations, depending on which political party controls the White House.
"Issues having to do with how unions organize and what tactics are permitted are issues that will continue to shift with the makeup of the board," Ver Beek said. Further, "entrepreneurial rights," or those concerning plant location and relocation, as well as subcontracting, "are always going to be viewed differently by the appointees of the two different parties," Ver Beek said.
The longer Bush is in office, the more pain the NLRB could inflict.
"I expect the acceleration of right-wing anti-labor policies to explode in the second term, if there is one," Newman said. If Bush wins another four years in office in 2004, it's more likely there will be a "frontal assault on the National Labor Relations Act that would further gut labor rights across the board," he said.
The NLRB's role in this broader campaign will be established case by case, Newman noted. Incrementally, the NLRB's interpretation of case facts can have a "chilling effect" on labor law, he said.
"There now appears to be a majority … that takes a different look at a few of the employment cases in a way that is more favorable to employers," said Ver Beek, the management-side labor lawyer. He described the shift under Bush as "discernible" but not "radical," and he said that in a few cases, the new board has chosen not to go "more directly against unions."
Even so, the White House has made no secret of its intent regarding workers' rights. Having consolidated Republican power from Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol dome, the Administration is operating on multiple fronts in the battle against working families.
Trillions of dollars in reverse-Robin-Hood tax policies have rewarded the rich while robbing federal program funding and burdening future generations with the real-life price of ballooning budget deficits. Complex and costly new union reporting requirements have stacked the deck even more dramatically against organized labor. Bush has blocked strikes at airlines, while pressing Congress to bail out the disastrously run aviation companies to the tune of billions.
And these are just a few of the ways that the administration is systematically squeezing out the priorities of ordinary Americans.
"They even went after the 40-hour work week," Newman said, referring to Bush-backed legislation that would erode overtime pay protections. "These guys are trying to roll back the reforms of the last century."
Current NLRB members include Chairman Robert Battista, Rene Alexander Acosta, Peter Shaumber, all Republicans, and Democrats Wilma Liebman, a reappointment from the Clinton administration, and Dennis Walsh.
Congress created the independent agency in 1935 to enforce federal labor law. Its two major components – both appointed by the president and subject to Senate confirmation – are the board, which decides unfair labor practice cases, and the general counsel, currently Arthur Rosenfeld. The general counsel, who is independent from the board, handles the investigation and prosecution of cases and oversees NLRB field offices in processing the cases.
Cynthia Green is a freelance writer.
© 2003 Labor Research Association
Yet another weapon in the Bush administration's anti-worker arsenal is the freshly packed National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the five-member body charged with enforcing federal labor laws.
The latest President Bush has only just finished staffing the now-Republican-dominated board, so blockbuster decisions have yet to be handed down. But the board is now dominated by appointees hostile to labor, so it's just a matter of time before the true Republican colors of the Bush NLRB come through.
Bush appointed all five current board members, including three Republicans, all of whom were confirmed by the Senate in December of 2002. Their terms are staggered, with one Republican's appointment expiring in August.
Already, the NLRB has shocked the labor community with its decision to support a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The business trade group seeks to strike down a California law preventing employers from using tax dollars for anti-union campaigns. The NLRB filed a friend-of-the-court brief backing the Chamber's position in the appellate court case.
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said the decision is "outrageous as it marks a sharp departure from the Board's primary mission of protecting workers' rights."
Nathan Newman, a lawyer at New York University law school's Brennan Center for Justice, said it's "quite remarkable" that the Bush-packed NLRB has taken a hypocritically anti-federalist stance against state law, one that practically mandates corporations to spend government grants and subsidies to fund union-busting.
"We're not even talking about a particularly draconian law," Newman said, noting that the current California statute does not prevent companies from spending their own money to fight unions.
"California's law simply protects taxpayers by making clear such uses of state funds – pro-union or anti-union – are unauthorized," Sweeney said.
Newman said the NLRB's intervention itself was notable. "They don't do that often, especially in a case that doesn't address a decision that they made," he said.
With the board now at full complement, momentum may build for employer-friendly verdicts. The labor community may soon face tinkering to or even reversals of Clinton-era decisions concerning graduate school organizing rights, employees' ability to discuss workplace issues over e-mail, representation of non-union employees, the status of temporary workers, and so-called "paycheck protection" issues, Newman said.
Carl Ver Beek, a Michigan-based management-side labor lawyer, said the decision "pendulum," particularly on certain key issues, tends to swing back and forth between administrations, depending on which political party controls the White House.
"Issues having to do with how unions organize and what tactics are permitted are issues that will continue to shift with the makeup of the board," Ver Beek said. Further, "entrepreneurial rights," or those concerning plant location and relocation, as well as subcontracting, "are always going to be viewed differently by the appointees of the two different parties," Ver Beek said.
The longer Bush is in office, the more pain the NLRB could inflict.
"I expect the acceleration of right-wing anti-labor policies to explode in the second term, if there is one," Newman said. If Bush wins another four years in office in 2004, it's more likely there will be a "frontal assault on the National Labor Relations Act that would further gut labor rights across the board," he said.
The NLRB's role in this broader campaign will be established case by case, Newman noted. Incrementally, the NLRB's interpretation of case facts can have a "chilling effect" on labor law, he said.
"There now appears to be a majority … that takes a different look at a few of the employment cases in a way that is more favorable to employers," said Ver Beek, the management-side labor lawyer. He described the shift under Bush as "discernible" but not "radical," and he said that in a few cases, the new board has chosen not to go "more directly against unions."
Even so, the White House has made no secret of its intent regarding workers' rights. Having consolidated Republican power from Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol dome, the Administration is operating on multiple fronts in the battle against working families.
Trillions of dollars in reverse-Robin-Hood tax policies have rewarded the rich while robbing federal program funding and burdening future generations with the real-life price of ballooning budget deficits. Complex and costly new union reporting requirements have stacked the deck even more dramatically against organized labor. Bush has blocked strikes at airlines, while pressing Congress to bail out the disastrously run aviation companies to the tune of billions.
And these are just a few of the ways that the administration is systematically squeezing out the priorities of ordinary Americans.
"They even went after the 40-hour work week," Newman said, referring to Bush-backed legislation that would erode overtime pay protections. "These guys are trying to roll back the reforms of the last century."
Current NLRB members include Chairman Robert Battista, Rene Alexander Acosta, Peter Shaumber, all Republicans, and Democrats Wilma Liebman, a reappointment from the Clinton administration, and Dennis Walsh.
Congress created the independent agency in 1935 to enforce federal labor law. Its two major components – both appointed by the president and subject to Senate confirmation – are the board, which decides unfair labor practice cases, and the general counsel, currently Arthur Rosenfeld. The general counsel, who is independent from the board, handles the investigation and prosecution of cases and oversees NLRB field offices in processing the cases.
Cynthia Green is a freelance writer.
© 2003 Labor Research Association
