retail news in context, analysis with attitude

Politico reports this morning that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has voted “to move forward with a contentious new labor rule” designed to “eliminate delays between when employees file for a vote on whether to start a union and the day the ballots are cast.”

According to the story, “Republicans and business groups charge would restrict the ability of employers to bring concerns about union elections to the regulatory agency ... The U.S. Chamber of Commerce criticized the NLRB’s move Wednesday, arguing that the proposed rule would lead to ‘ambush elections’ that don’t allow employers adequate time to discuss unionization with their employees.”

Politico notes that the House of Representatives has “passed by a 235-188 vote a bill that would roll back the NLRB rule. The legislation, sponsored by Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), was drafted in response to the NLRB’s more sweeping earlier proposal and was the second whack at the labor board this fall by the GOP-led House, which in September approved a bill that would ban the NLRB from forcing companies to close or relocate jobs.”
KC's View:
I’m in favor of fairness. People ought to have the right to unionize, and companies ought to have the right to explain why employees are better off without a union. In this case, it appears that organized labor wants to speed up the process because private sector unions are in decline, and this is one way to address the issue.

It is sort of like moving in the fences in a baseball stadium when you suddenly realize that your team is incapable of hitting home runs. I get the rationale, but is somehow seems sort of cheap.