NLRB, Do We Need It?

[DanaCos]

Union strength and labor law, particularly how the NLRA impacts contracts and union bargaining. My stance is that the NLRA, especially with how the NLRB changes based on political shifts, ends up making union advocacy less effective in the long run. Here’s why:

The NLRA, for all its intentions, ties union hands in certain areas, forcing us to go through the NLRB’s political process that changes dramatically based on administration. Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the NLRB has shifted unpredictably, leaving unions at the mercy of whoever is in power. Instead of focusing on political support, we should consider empowering unions to negotiate directly with employers through contract law without the interference of the NLRB, which is vulnerable to these shifts. By eliminating the NLRA, we might focus on building binding contracts that don’t rely on the NLRB's decisions to remain enforceable.

As for your point about Trump and immigration, my position on the NLRA and labor law isn’t about defending any particular administration. It’s about finding the best structure to strengthen unions without having to rely on unstable political backing. My main interest is in how we, as a union, can gain more independence in negotiating and enforcing fair labor standards directly.

Let's focus on how best to keep unions strong without relying on political players who may or may not have our interests at heart.

[Noman2024]

Your point that the NLRB's decisions fluctuate based on the administration in power is valid, but entirely misses the point. Before the NLRA, there wasn't any law that required an employer to recognize much less negotiate with a union or individual employees. There is nothing in "contract law" that compels an employer to deal with a representative of its employees. Look around at workers in industries not covered by state employee bargaining laws or the NLRA---farm workers for instance-- and see how well they've faired without the NLRA's protections. And if you think you will be able to use the courts to enforce "contract laws" to get better collective agreements, who do you expect to bring those lawsuits? The NLRB, for all its well documented deficiencies, conducts elections and certifies bargaining representatives. It investigates ulps, brings complaints against companies, and takes cases to court, all without charging either the worker or union it is representing. Think you're going to find a group of lawyers to bring suits against Amazon, etc. for free? What aspects of "contract law" do you think apply to the types of labor disputes covered by the NLRA? There is a reason the law was passed to fill a vacuum in existing contract law and provide some protections for workers. And let's consider the judges who are going to be hearing these private contract law suits. Most are former corporate counsels. Thanks to Trump, not only are a large proportion of federal judges conservative corporate lawyers but the Trump majority at the Supreme Court made it easier for the district court judges to ignore the expertise of administrative agencies and substitute their own biased anti-worker judgments to resolve cases. The solution for the inequities in the labor legal field is amendment of the NLRA to make it more pro-worker. Enactment of the PRO Act would have helped, but that is now a pipe dream. Repeal of the NLRA would take us back to the time workers could be fired and blacklisted for joining a union (look up "yellow dog contracts"); could be considered part of a criminal conspiracy if they engaged in collective action against an employer (see Journeyman Cordwainers), and in short order would take us back to the era where injunctions were freely issued to prevent workers from striking or otherwise work, And if you think you're going back to the days of the Minneapolis General strike, consider Trump's plans to invoke the Insurrection Act to authorize the use of the military against American citizens. Your vision of Making America Great Again by eliminating the only legal structure protecting collective bargaining and the right to engage in collective activity to maximize workers' power is, with all due respect, ridiculous.

[Mr. Teamster]

Union strength and labor law, particularly how the NLRA impacts contracts and union bargaining. My stance is that the NLRA, especially with how the NLRB changes based on political shifts, ends up making union advocacy less effective in the long run. Here’s why:

The NLRA, for all its intentions, ties union hands in certain areas, forcing us to go through the NLRB’s political process that changes dramatically based on administration. Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, the NLRB has shifted unpredictably, leaving unions at the mercy of whoever is in power. Instead of focusing on political support, we should consider empowering unions to negotiate directly with employers through contract law without the interference of the NLRB, which is vulnerable to these shifts. By eliminating the NLRA, we might focus on building binding contracts that don’t rely on the NLRB's decisions to remain enforceable.

As for your point about Trump and immigration, my position on the NLRA and labor law isn’t about defending any particular administration. It’s about finding the best structure to strengthen unions without having to rely on unstable political backing. My main interest is in how we, as a union, can gain more independence in negotiating and enforcing fair labor standards directly.

Let's focus on how best to keep unions strong without relying on political players who may or may not have our interests at heart.

We need the NLRA Dana..

[OT+]

Home X - 2024-11-10T072804.285.jpg
More: Do we need the NLRB?

[L Depew]

Ask the Organizers that were fired recently howxwell the NLRB worked out for them when Chris Rosell and his Cronies fired him for exercising his rights to organize.

[Gimme_Danger]

I see an open charge filed Oct 8th. Charges take forever to process.

[Nights]

The Board is slow and understaffed and thats about to get much worse.

[quotetheraven1031]

Fake news. Any dipshit can file bullshit charges and lie to fit an achieved narrative

[Nights]

Your point that the NLRB's decisions fluctuate based on the administration in power is valid, but entirely misses the point. Before the NLRA, there wasn't any law that required an employer to recognize much less negotiate with a union or individual employees. There is nothing in "contract law" that compels an employer to deal with a representative of its employees. Look around at workers in industries not covered by state employee bargaining laws or the NLRA---farm workers for instance-- and see how well they've faired without the NLRA's protections. And if you think you will be able to use the courts to enforce "contract laws" to get better collective agreements, who do you expect to bring those lawsuits? The NLRB, for all its well documented deficiencies, conducts elections and certifies bargaining representatives. It investigates ulps, brings complaints against companies, and takes cases to court, all without charging either the worker or union it is representing. Think you're going to find a group of lawyers to bring suits against Amazon, etc. for free? What aspects of "contract law" do you think apply to the types of labor disputes covered by the NLRA? There is a reason the law was passed to fill a vacuum in existing contract law and provide some protections for workers. And let's consider the judges who are going to be hearing these private contract law suits. Most are former corporate counsels. Thanks to Trump, not only are a large proportion of federal judges conservative corporate lawyers but the Trump majority at the Supreme Court made it easier for the district court judges to ignore the expertise of administrative agencies and substitute their own biased anti-worker judgments to resolve cases. The solution for the inequities in the labor legal field is amendment of the NLRA to make it more pro-worker. Enactment of the PRO Act would have helped, but that is now a pipe dream. Repeal of the NLRA would take us back to the time workers could be fired and blacklisted for joining a union (look up "yellow dog contracts"); could be considered part of a criminal conspiracy if they engaged in collective action against an employer (see Journeyman Cordwainers), and in short order would take us back to the era where injunctions were freely issued to prevent workers from striking or otherwise work, And if you think you're going back to the days of the Minneapolis General strike, consider Trump's plans to invoke the Insurrection Act to authorize the use of the military against American citizens. Your vision of Making America Great Again by eliminating the only legal structure protecting collective bargaining and the right to engage in collective activity to maximize workers' power is, with all due respect, ridiculous.

Certainly not perfect but the NLRB right now is probably the best I've ever seen, especially for Teamsters. The above by Noman2024 is a great explanation of why we need an NLRB, but we also need to make sure it's pro-worker and pro-union. That just became impossible for the forseeable future.

[Gimme_Danger]

The decisions are good, it takes years to get results though. Labor law is essentially toothless.

[DanaCos]

Without the NLRA, unions and workers could potentially negotiate contracts directly without regulatory restrictions. This might allow for more flexibility in bargaining terms, leading to innovative agreements suited to the specific needs of different industries. Some argue that the NLRA’s regulations can be restrictive, limiting workers' bargaining strategies, strike options, or direct engagement with employers.

Other advanced economies have strong labor protections without a structure exactly like the NLRA. In the EU, for example, workers often negotiate directly through collective bargaining agreements established at an industry or company level without an agency like the NLRB. This shows that protections are possible without federal-level administrative oversight, though it does require organizing and legal support from other entities.

Although the NLRB provides some legal support for workers, in recent years many unions have increasingly turned to private labor law firms and non-profit organizations for legal support, particularly in cases against large corporations. There are existing labor rights groups and organizations willing to represent workers in disputes with major employers like Amazon or Walmart. Examples include the National Employment Law Project and the American Civil Liberties Union, which provide legal representation and advocacy for worker rights.

In recent years, workers have successfully leveraged public opinion and social media to pressure companies into fair treatment and better conditions without the involvement of the NLRB. Examples include the pressure campaigns that led to changes in policies at Amazon and Starbucks. Direct appeals to the public, combined with social media, could serve as a modern tool for rallying support for labor issues without reliance on formalized structures like the NLRA.

While the federal NLRA provides a baseline for labor rights, states like California and New York have implemented additional protections that strengthen worker rights. Without the NLRA, there could be opportunities for states to expand labor laws to better suit their residents' needs.

The critique about conservative judges could be addressed by advocating for judicial reforms that ensure fair treatment of labor cases. This could include measures to diversify the federal judiciary or encourage legislative action that prevents undue bias in labor dispute cases, making contract law disputes more favorable for workers.

[JWebb]

Respectfully, the above is fantasy. You'll get exactly what you voted for, smaller and weaker unions resulting in contracts that you'll be the first to complain about.

[WTF891]

JWebb 100% people get what they purchased. Get ready hope you have some vaseline.

[Hiway80]

Certainly not perfect but the NLRB right now is probably the best I've ever seen, especially for Teamsters. The above by Noman2024 is a great explanation of why we need an NLRB, but we also need to make sure it's pro-worker and pro-union. That just became impossible for the forseeable future.

This is an important discussion and I appreciate the very different opinions. I'm trying to be optomistic but todays announcement about Gaetz doesn't help.