Congress takes aim at new union election rules
Source: CBS News
By KATE GIBSON
Congress on Thursday approved legislation to block new union election rules backed by labor groups and opposed by business organizations.
The Republican-dominated House on Thursday voted 233 to 181 in approving a measure to ban rules issued in December by the National Labor Relations Board and slated to take effect April 14.
One Democrat, California's Rep. Jerry McNerney, joined House Republicans in passing the resolution, which comes two weeks after the Senate also voted largely along party lines to kill the rules, which would allow what the GOP has dubbed "ambush elections."
The news rules would let a representation election happen in less than two weeks after an official petition is filed. Currently, elections can happen no earlier than 25 days after filing, and typically take place far later.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bid-by-congress-to-defeat-union-election-rules/
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Feb 1, 2013
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul this week introduced the National Right to Work Act, S. 204, which seeks to preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities.
"Every American worker deserves the right to freedom of association - and I am concerned that the 26 states that allow forced union membership and dues infringes on these workers' rights," Sen. Paul said. "Right to work laws ensure that all Americans are given the choice to refrain from joining or paying dues to a union as a condition for employment. Nearly 80 percent of all Americans support the principles and so I have introduced a national Right to Work Act that will require all states to give their workers the freedom to choose."
Sen. Paul's Right to Work Act does not add a single word to existing federal law, it simply deletes forced unionism provisions in federal law.
Due to six infringing and freedom-crushing provisions in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Railway Labor Act (RLA), there are currently 8 million working Americans who are required by law to pay union dues. These workers are not required to join a workers union but they are required to pay the dues; and if workers refuse to pay these union fees, they risk losing their jobs to Big Labor.
Below is text of Sen. Paul's legislation:
S.204
A bill to preserve and protect the free choice of individual employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to refrain from such activities.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ''National Right-to-Work Act''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT.
(a) RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES.-Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 157) is amended by striking ''except to'' and all that follows through ''authorized in section 8(a)(3)''.
(b) UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES.-Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158) is amended-
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking '': Provided, That'' and all that follows through ''retaining membership'';
(2) in subsection (b)-
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ''or to discriminate'' and all that follows through ''retaining membership''; and
(B) in paragraph (5), by striking ''covered by an agreement authorized under subsection (a)(3) of this section''; and
(3) in subsection (f), by striking clause (2) and redesignating clauses (3) and (4) as clauses (2) and (3), respectively.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.
Section 2 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 152) is amended by striking paragraph Eleven.
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?id=692&p=press_release
(Press releases are in the Public Domain.)
He is also cited here:
http://nrtwc.org/tag/rand-paul/
From our side, the Bold Progressive website:
Koch-Funded Rand Paul Introduces National Anti-Union 'Right To Work' Bill To The Senate
By Zaid Jilani - February 4, 2013
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) just introduced a federal so-called "right to work" law that would undermine labor organizing nationwide. Here's an excerpt from his press release touting the legislation:
"Every American worker deserves the right to freedom of association - and I am concerned that the 26 states that allow forced union membership and dues infringes on these workers' rights. Right to work laws ensure that all Americans are given the choice to refrain from joining or paying dues to a union as a condition for employment. Nearly 80 percent of all Americans support the principles and so I have introduced a national Right to Work Act that will require all states to give their workers the freedom to choose."
The fact is, no one is forced to join a union. What so-called "right to work" laws allow is for workers to receive union benefits without paying union dues, which undermines the ability for unions to represent workers.
Researchers from the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute have found that the economies of states who have these laws "are associated with significantly lower wages and reduced chances of receiving employer-sponsored health insurance and pensions." They estimated that hourly wages for all workers -- not just union workers -- in these states are 3% lower.
There has never been a serious push for a national "right to work" law, making Paul's effort fairly unique. The National Right To Work Committee gave $7,500 to Paul's campaign, and Koch Industries -- which bankrolls state-wide efforts to install these laws -- is his third largest contributor.
http://boldprogressives.org/2013/02/rand-paul-introduces-national-anti-union-right-to-work-bill-to-the-senate/
And in 2015:
Right-To-Work: A Farce in One Long Act
A long read, worth it:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/02/01/1361572/-Right-To-Work-A-Farce-in-One-Long-Act
blackspade
(10,056 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)And the Dem...from California? Not! A DINO?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)This apparently was done under House Rule XIX (3)
3. When a motion has been carried or lost, it shall be in order on the same or succeeding day for a Member on the prevailing side of the question to enter a motion for the reconsideration thereof.
In simple language, he was picked by the Democratic Leadership to vote with the GOP so if the Democrats managed to pick up some additional votes, he, as a member of the "Prevailing side" can ask for "Reconsideration" i.e. a new vote:
House rules:
http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/house-rules.pdf
Both parties use this rule all the time, the party member who ends up voting with the majority is generally the most loyal party member on the issue.
The Senate has the same rule and is used the same way.
As to Obama being able to Veto this law, Obama can NOT veto a bill passed by the House, but such a bill has NO LEGAL EFFECT till it is passed by the Senate and then sent to the President (who can then veto it).
red dog 1
(27,889 posts)From CBSNews.com
"The Senate, which would need 67 votes to override a presidential veto, voted 53-46 to pass the resolution."
red dog 1
(27,889 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 19, 2015, 06:27 PM - Edit history (1)
I guess Obama gets to use his Veto pen again.
What a waste of taxpayer money these Repuke's & their meaningless bills are!
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Comments are my own.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)think Rosie should be barefoot, pregnant, and at home. How far backwards we have gone- both of my grandmothers worked in factories supporting WWII. Good, strong women, one of which produced my good, strong mother- I miss these three women every day. I am the man I am today because of them, and am married to a good, strong woman. Being married to a strong woman can be hard, but it is well worth it.
turbinetree
(24,737 posts)This is a prime example of how right to work for less supporters think of the American worker .
They (republicans, libertarians and dino's) DO NOT SUPPORT a MAJORITY of workers wanting to be represented in the work place if they get 50+1, just like in congressional elections.
The president can and most likely will veto this legislation.
The present system gives the anti-worker lawyers and corporations with the backing of the millionaires and billionaires and the people that work for the millionaires and billionaires and then the suckers that keep falling for this same old line that the republicans are there to help you, while they do the opposite with more time to screw the middle class and the poor who want representation in the work place but not in this right wing corrupt political Congress, which we are not getting by any of the stretch of the imagination.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)say it as often as you can, it is the only way you can believe it
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,356 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)secondvariety
(1,245 posts)he will.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)rladdi
(581 posts)may lose an election if the worker organize. I am sure they would.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)He was told to vote that way by Democratic House leadership so that if they picked up more votes later, as a member of the prevailing side of the bill, he could seek reconsideration...basically, any member of the winning side can within 48 hours demand a revote, so you choose one member of the party to vote for something you oppose or vice-versa so that if you muster the votes later, that person can demand a re-vote.
(I only know this because two other people explained it in the thread.)
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)party that financed the Nazis.