Obama Administration Wants To Change Rules For Union Elections To Help Unions

Of course, they pretend this isn’t a naked pro-union move and power grab. I don’t know why they bother pretending anymore. It is bad enough they want to corrupt, ruin, and plunder us. Couldn’t they at least stop insulting our intelligence with these blatant lies? Adds insult to injury.

The Obama National Labor Relations Board wants to rush voting by employees on whether or not to unionize.

OpenMarket.org gave the story the perfect headline: “Ambush Elections Diminish the Understanding They Seek.” On second thought, maybe it is not really perfect. It might be improved by a slight change: “Ambush Elections Diminish the Understanding They Claim To Seek.”

Workers would have less time to study for their huge, life-changing test of whether to unionize, under a new, proposed Obama administration rule that nonsensically claims it would increase understanding of and participation in the unionization process.

Currently, unionization elections occur an average of 38 days after they are called. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has now proposed to have elections in as few as 10 days. Thus, under the proposal, workers could have only about a quarter of the time to study the unionization material.

Would a student feel more prepared for pop quizzes or for well-planned tests? Would cutting study time to one-fourth of the previous average improve understanding? Would cutting students’ inquiry and prep time by seventy-five percent increase or diminish participation?

The labor board’s proposal follows the logic of Nancy Pelosi: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” As we have seen with the ObamaCare law, perhaps this is not the best way to create policy.

The NLRB proposal is a purely partisan one, passed on a 3-to-2, party-line vote. Yet, as my colleague Trey Kovacs noted, NLRB Chair Mark Pearce glosses over this pure partisanship, emphasizing that the board is “unanimous” in support for “important,” “effective,” and “constructive” procedures.

Right. They are all in favor of “effective” and “constructive” procedures, and two of the five are diametrically opposed to the other three about how to bring that about.