NLRB, Do We Need It?

[DanaCos]

[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]

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]

[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.