House committee considers Kline bill to slow union elections
WASHINGTON — The House Education and Workforce Committee is set to consider today Chairman John Kline’s bill quashing a summer National Labor Relations Board ruling allowing for quick union elections.
The bill will be the second piece of NLRB legislation the Minnesota Republican's committee has considered and passed as a part of House Republican’s jobs agenda, which consists of repealing government regulations in order to provide more stability for companies to hire workers.
Kline noted the first of those bills — which prevents the NLRB from ordering companies to relocate jobs across state lines — in a district newsletter his office sent out Monday night.
“After the Boeing Company spent $1 billion building a plant and hiring thousands of workers in South Carolina, the NLRB sought to force the transfer of work to a unionized facility in Washington state,” he wrote. “When sharing thoughts of the federal government’s increasingly intrusive footprint into the private sector, [a] small business owner said, 'I have to watch my back so I don’t get shot in the butt.'"
That bill joined many of those passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to see no action in the Democrat-controlled Senate (Republican leadership began dubbing a set of those bills “the Forgotten 15” this week). The NLRB bill Kline’s committee will mark up today is likely to follow the same script — win committee approval, pass the House, and stall in Senate.
On Kline’s bill, Education and Workforce Committee Democrats argue it opens the door for long delays to union elections through legislative mandates and incentives for companies to pursue legal action. They’ve giving the bill the moniker, “The Election Prevention Act.”
More broadly, Democrats are united in arguing that repealing regulatory matters like NLRB rulings aren’t the right path to economic recovery. In interviews Monday, two Education and the Workforce Democrats said consumers’ weak purchasing power, not government regulations, are preventing recovery.
“The regulation stuff is interesting, but that’s not what the problem is,” said George Miller of California, the ranking Democrat on the committee.
“It’s almost like, you get to the shopping mall and the mall is burning down, and there is water flooding all through the mall, and there is one car in the parking lot with a dead battery,” said Robert Andrews, the lead Democrat on the subcommittee dealing with labor issues. “So they all rush over to jump the car with a dead battery, but they let the mall burn down. That’s kind of what I think they’re doing.”
Devin Henry can be reached at dhenry@minnpost.com. Follow him on Twitter: @dhenry
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
30 comments
-
26 comments
-
26 comments
-
23 comments
-
21 comments
Comments (8)
If we're arguing the merits of these bills strictly on the effect they have on hiring (and, IMO there are much more important impingments on basic freedoms involved) Kline’s bill wins hands down.
Long delays to union elections do not, in and of themselves, stall economic activity. Shutting down a $Billion dollar manufacturing plant in a hard hit state certainly does.
At some point, the Democrat party is going to have to make their priorities clear; union financial and political support or American working families.
It really is just that simple.
But that is just the issue, isn't it Mr. Swift? American workers are being worked over, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to keep building planes if there is no one left who can afford airfare.
And I have a hard time believing Mr. Kline's legislative efforts aren't driven as much by a desire to eliminate a political opponent as they are by concern over the state of the economy.
Whoever that political opponent is who made the decision to block a private company from moving their plant SHOULD be eliminated.
That was an outrageous decision and the politician responsible should be called out and/or the bureaucrats responsible should be fired.
ALL totalitarian dictatorships made a distinct decision to get rid of unions in order to maintain control.
China-you will be sent to jail if you try and start a union
Former Soviet Union- Unions were illegal, leaders jailed
Nazi Germany-Unionists where the first to the gas chamber
Columbia-union leaders targeted and murdered
United States-GOP targets unions with "right to work" legislation and anti-collective bargaining laws.
Ask yourself, why are you on the same side as these monsters? There is a reason the puppet masters at the top want unions gone. They have convinced you they are the enemy.
In history, unions have always been the enemy of tyrants and thugs. It is as true today.
I wonder: Why is the Republcan's constant refrain: big government interferance is bad, yet they keep legislating big government interferance?
Alec, if even the commies and their controlled economies oppose unions, people who believe that a free man owns his own labor certainly should be.
The rise of unions in the United States coincides with the rise of the middle class (1930's through 1970's). The decline of unions (now approxiamtely 7-8% in the private sector) coincides with the decline of the middle class and the increase in disparity between workers and CEO's/wealthy investors. The attempt to drive a wedge between unions and working families is a divisive tactic that only serves to enrich the wealthy, politically well-entrenched.
The decline of the unions is a result of them pricing themselves out of the labor market. See Capitalism 101.