![]() And it protects them from retaliation if they choose to go the different way. It gets rid of the secret ballot elections for unionization, the gold standard to keep somebody from being put into a corner and intimidated until they vote the way the intimidator wishes them to vote. To make one thing clear, the PRO Act is not pro-worker it is pro-big union. Today we’ll hear a lot about the PRO Act. This includes NLRB staff, providing duplicate ballots, supplying union organizers with confidential voter information and providing voter accommodations to employees selected by the union without offering them to all employees.Īll these actions are in direct violation of federal law and the NLRB has written guidelines. What is really concerning is that an NLRB hearing officer recently substantiated voting irregularities at a Starbucks in Kansas that could potentially elevate the misconduct on behalf of the NRLB employees. And by the way, the title of this hearing kind of echoes that claim but their claim lacks sufficient evidence to justify the accusation. The NLRB claimed a company was employing a nationwide anti-union policy. Starbucks because NLRB did not have sufficient evidence supporting a claim against the employer. Last week, a Michigan court denied the NLRB request for a nationwide cease-and-desist order in Kerwin v. The purpose of the NLRB is to provide an unbiased framework to review disputes between employees and employers. Yesterday, I sent a letter to the National Labor Relations Board concerning the weaponization of its enforcement power and targeting of high profile employers on behalf of the same well-connected unions. The intent is to force workers into unions to prop up and support the power of big, politically-connected unions. These efforts are not about supporting the rights of workers. It might be administrative action, or it might be the introduction of the PRO Act. We’re seeing a concerning trend that attempts to erode workers’ rights. Being pro-worker is about supporting all workers and all workers’ right to choose what is best for their career. Please, let’s not confuse being pro-union with being pro-worker. Maybe they don’t want part of their paycheck being used to pay six figure salaries of union leaders or to support political activism with which they vehemently disagree. Based upon individual talent as opposed to just seniority. They may decide that a union limits their work flexibility or eliminates the ability to be rewarded. Defending the rights of workers also includes defending those who choose it is not in their best interest to form or join a union. Now, the majority’s title and framing of today’s hearing as defending the right of workers to organize leaves out an important other side of the coin. That is what being a right-to-work state is about. I support them, and I’m proud that they have the ability to make that decision. Being a right-to-work state means that these workers have the right, and chose being in a union as best for their career. There are 76,000 union workers in Louisiana. Additionally, Cassidy sounded the alarm on the weaponization of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against employers. ![]() Cassidy also discussed how the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act would take away this right. He spoke to the importance of defending the rights of all workers, including those who exercise their right to choose to not join a union. (R-LA), ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, delivered remarks during today’s hearing on labor relations in the United States.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |