Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the NLRB Relating to Representation Election Procedures--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise in support of my colleague from Wyoming and the excellent work he is doing and continues to do, as well as the leadership he continues to provide for all the Senate and certainly for the people of Wyoming. He is the captain of our team. I agree with him and wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Wyoming and express my concerns about the new ambush election rule issued by the National Labor Relations Board.

The National Labor Relations Board is the Federal agency charged with conducting labor elections and investigating unfair labor practice charges. The appointed members of this board are meant to help facilitate a level playing field in the private sector workplace. Unfortunately, recent actions have demonstrated that the board is much more interested, in my opinion, in pursuing regulatory changes that favor unions. They should be focused on ensuring that workers are able to make informed decisions about their place of employment, not on showing favoritism.

Let's take a look at the ambush election rule. On December 22 of last year, the National Labor Relations Board issued a new rule. The new rule greatly shortens the time period between the filing of a petition for union representation and when that election is held. Under the current rules, most union elections take place within about 38 days. Under the new rules, the time could be cut almost in half. The ambush election rule also narrows the scope of preelection hearings while limiting the rights of a party to preelection appeals.

I believe this misguided rule undermines the basic fairness in the representation election process. It limits the amount of information received by employees regarding the impact of unionization on their workplace. The rule also significantly restricts the ability of employers to educate their employees and to share their perspective.

I believe this causes harm to workers. The decision on whether to join or form a union is a very important decision for workers. Employment decisions directly affect an individual's ability to support their family, to pay their bills, and to sustain their livelihood. Workers deserve to have all the information needed to make a well-informed decision.

In order to seriously consider their options, employees must have the opportunity to hear from both sides on the implications of unionization. The ambush election rule, in my opinion, attempts to quickly rush employees through the union election process, without giving those employees the full picture and a clear understanding of the issues.

I have great concerns about what I believe is a disregarding of employer input. The ambush election rule disregards the rights of small businesses and employers across this country. The new rule is attempting to silence employers from discussing vital information with their employees about unionization and the impact on their lives and on their jobs. Under the new rule, employers would have a very limited amount of time to share their views, to provide counterarguments, and to explain what unionization would mean in the workplace. Employers should be allowed time to fully explain the information to their employees. Ultimately, I believe the purpose of the recently released rule is to leave employers unable to effectively communicate with workers about important workplace issues. The Board is infringing upon the free speech rights of the employers.

I believe this new rule prevents employers from getting counsel. In this tough economic environment, small business owners are facing an incredible amount of pressure and responsibility. Job creators are working hard to ensure their products and services are competitive. They are working to find available markets for their goods and services. They are trying to deal with the financial health of their businesses.

Many small business owners are unaware of the complicated Federal laws they must adhere to during the union election process. Due to the variety of competing priorities and limited resources, small businesses all across this country often don't employ inhouse legal counsel or human resource professionals familiar with unionization laws. Under the new rule, however, the time constraints will make it even more difficult for them to find appropriate counsel, to consult on the issues, and to prepare for the election process. Employers will be scrambling to find a labor attorney or a human resource professional to help explain their rights and to ensure that their actions are permissible under current law. As a result, many employers will be left at risk for unintentionally violating certain Federal labor laws or silenced.

The National Labor Relations Board should not be forcing employers to preemptively analyze Federal labor laws and figure out how best to communicate their views of unionization in case a union petition happens to pop up. Job creators should be focusing their scarce time and resources on managing and growing their businesses, on trying to put Americans back to work at a time of over 8 percent unemployment.

I view this whole new rule as unnecessary. There is no reason for the new rule. The median timeframe for union elections has been 38 days from the filing of the petition. About 91 percent of all the elections held in 2011 occurred within 56 days. These numbers indicate the petitions and elections are handled, and have been handled, in a timely manner. Furthermore, the current election procedures are not impeding the ability of unions to win the representation elections. According to the National Labor Relations Board's own statistics, unions won about 71 percent of elections held in 2011.

When I take a look at what is happening with the National Labor Relations Board, what comes to mind are the recent recess appointments made by the President. This new rule we are facing and discussing is not the first time the Obama administration has attempted to use the NLRB to pursue the union's agenda. The administration continues to take actions and push through policies that are unwise and even, in my opinion, unconstitutional, in order to do the bidding of unions.

In an action that was both unprecedented and unconstitutional, President Obama recess appointed three new members to the National Labor Relations Board during a pro forma session of this Senate. President Obama appointed three individuals. The nominations of two of them, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin, were sent to the Senate only a few days before the pro forma session began. As a result,

the Senate had no opportunity--none at all--to hold hearings or debate the nominees. President Obama completely disregarded the constitutional requirement of advice and consent for executive nominees. The appointments were a heavy-handed effort by this administration to curry favor, in my opinion, with the unions.

I come to the floor as someone who has talked at great length about the impact of regulations and how they make it harder and more expensive for our small businesses to hire people around the country. Businesses are already having trouble keeping track of all the changing rules and trying to abide by all the new requirements they face on almost a daily basis. The only certainty being offered to the job creators in the United States is that the Obama administration is going to continue to change the rules of the game on businesses to meet its own agenda. The ambush election rule is the exact type of regulatory change that makes employers nervous and reluctant to expand their businesses, to create new jobs, to hire and put people back to work. This Federal Government should be focused on giving employers stability, predictability, and opportunities for growth instead of stacking the deck, as we see it, in favor of labor unions.

I come to the floor, as I know my colleagues will as well, in a call to action to employ the Congressional Review Act. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress is able to overturn the ambush election rule by passing a resolution of disapproval. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S.J. Res. 36, introduced by Senator Enzi. The resolution of disapproval rescinds the new union election rule issued by the National Labor Relations Board. Unless Congress takes action, the new rule is scheduled to take effect on April 30 of this year--just the end of this month. I call upon the Senate to pass S.J. Res. 36 and prevent this dangerous rule from silencing employers and hindering the ability of American workers to make informed decisions.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source