Friday, August 23, 2013
Like Jeffrey, I too think there is something "fishy" about the Western District of Washington’s conclusion that Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon’s appointment is contrary to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). The court’s four-page order left me with three immediate thoughts:
First, the court is probably correct that Solomon was not an assistant to out-going General Counsel Meisburg. As far as I know, Solomon was the Executive Director of the Office of Representation Appeals when he was appointed Acting General Counsel. Representation Appeals is on the Board side of the agency and reports to the Chairman of the Board – not the General Counsel. So, if the FVRA applies only to first assistants then the appointment was probably unauthorized.
However, it seems that there is a strong argument that the court simply misread the FVRA. While Section (a)(1) does apply only to first assistants, that section provides for automatic succession without appointment or direction from the President. However, Sections (a)(2) and (a)(3) provide for a larger universe of eligible appointees in cases where the President directs a person to take over in an acting role. Section (a)(2) applies to any person “who serves in an office for which appointment is required and (a)(3) applies to any “officer or employee of such Executive agency.” Neither Section (a)(2) nor Section (a)(3) is limited to first assistants. Not being an expert on this topic, I am not sure those apply but is seems they could. The court could have read “office” broadly to include both GC and Board side “persons.” Or, the court could have certainly found Solomon to be an “employee of such Executive agency.” Whatever the correct result, the court’s one-sentence rejection of those provisions is just unconvincing.
Finally, if the court is correct, this ruling presents a larger issue than the recess appointments issue on the Board side. So much of the Board’s day-to-day operations run through the General Counsel, that paralyzing that half of the agency effectively paralyzes the whole. And, while former-Member and GC nominee Griffin is certainly qualified to be General Counsel, his being named in a racketeering suit and his previous questionable recess appointment makes it unlikely that he will be confirmed by the Senate anytime soon.
- Joe Mastrosimone (Washburn)
I'll admit it: I didn't see this one coming. A federal district court judge in Washington has just denied an NLRB petition for a 10(j) injunction based on the argument that the NLRB Members' at the time recess appointments were invalid and that Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon's appointment was improper.
The judge explicitly followed New Process in holding the recess appointments (which he mistakenly moved back by a full year) invalid. The NLRB then argued that the Regional Director doesn't need Board approval for a 10(j) injuction; instead, a delegation of authority from the GC will suffice. But the judge rejected that by concluding that Solomon's appointment was also infirm.
The argument with regard to Solomon implicates a different issue that the NLRB member appointments, which are largely constitutional in nature, as the GC is covered by the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. I have not looked closely at that act, but I've always been under the impression that Solomon's appointment fit easily under its requirements. The judge disagreed, based primarily on the argument that an acting GC must have been a "first assistant" to the GC prior to his or her appointment and that Solomon (who was Director of the Representation Unit before his appointment) didn't satisfy that requirement.
That conclusion still sounds fishy to me--I believe that Solomon and other similar section directors reported directly to the GC--but I'll concede that I don't know the FVRA enough to make an informed judgment (and the court also said it was "undisputed" that Solomon was never a first assistant). Moreover, the FVRA make a specific exception for the NLRB GC (which is why I've always thought this was fine), stating that it's not covered by a provision that doesn't allow ratification of actions by officials who were improperly appointed. The judge characterized this as an exception to a "penalty provision" that doesn't allow Solomon to act when his appointment was improper. I'm not sure that's really a "penalty" and the judge's argument seems circular, but again, I'm speaking partially out of ignorance here.
Hat Tip: Patrick Kavanagh & PS
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Riffing off Jeff's early post today on the NAA's amicus brief in Mulhall, I want to bring to reader's attention a provocative blog post written by Jack Goldsmith on the On Labor Blog, entitled: Three Problems in Mulhall. In short, the three problems with conservatives on the Court agreeing that a neutrality agreement represents a Section 302 violation concern: (1) the lack of a private cause of action; (2) pleading problems; and (3) mootness.
Jack does an excellent job laying out why conservative Justices set to deliver a death blow to neutrality agreements between employers and union in organizing campaigns will have a hard time doing so consistent with their conservative judicial principles (yes, I know this assumes we live in a judicially-principled world).
Here's Jack's conclusion:
Perhaps the Court will reverse in Mulhall on the basis of one of these three arguments (it is not clear that any of them is properly presented, though the first issue might be included within the general interpretation of the statute, and the third is probably jurisdictional). Or perhaps the Court will reverse after determining that employer concessions are not “things of value” under Section 302. (I think this is hard to do, if the Court gets this far.) Or perhaps it will dismiss the case as improvidently granted. But if (as many people think) the right side of the Court is set to affirm on the Eleventh Circuit’s theory of Section 302, it will have to do so in the face of some pretty important conservative principles, including freedom of contract, a presumption against private rights of action, a commitment to strict pleading rules, and respect for the limited subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts.
An important post by Jack and one that I hope may even (dare I dream?) lead to a certiorari improvidently granted ending.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Matthew Dimick (Buffalo) has posted on SSRN his new piece entited: Productive Unionism.
Here is the abstract:
Do labor unions have a future? This Article considers the role and importance of labor union structures, in particular to the degree of centralization in collective bargaining, to the future of labor unions. Centralization refers primarily to the level at which collective bargaining takes place: whether at the plant, firm, industry, or national level. The Article examines the historical origins of different structures of bargaining in the United States and Europe, the important implications that centralization has for economic productivity, and the ways that various labor law rules reinforce or reflect different bargaining structures. Most critically, the Article contends that greater centralization of collective bargaining entails a broader, more "universal" representation of worker interests, has a stronger impact on unions' ability to lower income inequality, and, through its positive effects on economic productivity, reduces employer opposition to unionization in the long run. Although centralized bargaining is a medium- to long-term goal, the Article proposes ways that unions can change their own organizational structures, bargaining objectives, and organizing tactics to position themselves for future changes in bargaining structure and to avoid the pitfalls of the decentralized bargaining structures of the past.
Matt wanted to make sure that I mentioned that this a working paper version and that all comments are very much welcome.
Friday, August 9, 2013
In this regard, he has posted on his blog, Charles J. Morris on Labor Relations, a warm-up for that prospect. The post is entitled: Members-Only Collective Bargaining: Get Ready for an Old Concept for a New Use, and the full version of his post is available on Charlie's blog.
Here's a taste of Charlie's post:
It is especially important that the AFL-CIO and other participants in American labor relations become better acquainted with the concept of members-only collective bargaining because the National Labor Relations Board will likely be considering that process in the near future. Validation of this innovative process can be of immense help in getting American workers back on the road to a robust labor movement and a major expansion of collective bargaining that will help build a stronger middle class.
The need for such a process has been dramatically evidenced by recent work stoppages at various Wal-Mart and fast-food locations. Although those walk-outs represent commendable examples of courageous workers fighting back, they will inevitably be unsuccessful in achieving significant change. Despite their legitimate complaints, those low-wage workers have no effective mean to engage management in a dialogue about working conditions―much less in a consequential bargaining session that might significantly improve those conditions.
They obviously need a union; but in accordance with prevailing conditions under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act), union representation is virtually unavailable to them and to most other American workers. The sad fact is that Wal-Mart and other anti-union companies are almost always able to prevent their employees from achieving union representation. Many―if not most― nonunion companies routinely indoctrinate their workforce with anti-union rhetoric and frequently engage in aggressive conduct—both legal and illegal—to successfully discourage any support for workers organizing into groups for any purpose. Employment discrimination and discharges for union activity, and the fear of such retaliation, are commonplace.
As Charlie points out, this is the same piece that he submitted to the AFL-CIO in its search for new ways of rebuilding the labor movement and collective bargaining. Charlie is the master on this topic and I highly recommend that those looking for alternatives to increase worker voice in the American workplace give serious consideration to Charlie's proposals.
It is my pleasure to bring to the attention of the readers of this blog the recent launch of a new academic labor law blog, jointly run by Ben Sachs and Jack Goldsmith (both of Harvard Law). It is aptly titled: On Labor.
A little taste of the blog's aspirations from the "About" section:
On Labor is a blog by Benjamin Sachs and Jack Goldsmith devoted to workers, unions, and their politics. We interpret our subject broadly to include the current crisis in the traditional union movement (why union decline is happening and what it means for our society); the new and contested forms of worker organization that are filling the labor union gap; how work ought to be structured and managed; how workers ought to be represented and compensated; and the appropriate role of government – all three branches – in each of these issues.
It looks like there will also be some other contributors to the blog who are students at Harvard Law School.
There are already some very interesting blog posts up, including one on the forthcoming Supreme Court Mulhall case, which Ben says "could be the most significant labor law case in a generation."
Check it out!
Friday, August 2, 2013
The White House has nominated Richard Griffin to be the NLRB General Counsel. Griffin, of course, served as a Board member through a contested recess appointment. It's good to see him land elsewhere at the Board, although current Acting GC Lafe Solomon has done a great job and will hopefully find a good landing.
Hat Tip: Joshua Glick & Patrick Kavanagh
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
I honestly didn't think I'd be writing those words this early, but it's true: today, the Senate confirmed five members for the NLRB, which is now full strength. Kent Hirowaza and Nancy Schiffer were confirmed 54-44; Chairman Pearce was reconfirmed 59-38; and the two Republicans, Harry Johnson and Phillip Miscimarra were confirmed on a voice vote.
I very pleased to see the Board at full strength--and in a manner that should keep it stable for a few years at least. I'm sure it's a great relief to employees at the Board.
Hat Tip: Patrick Kavanagh
Monday, July 22, 2013
Congratulations to Paul Secunda, who is quoted extensively in this Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article about Governor Scott Walker's evisceration of public sector unions in Wisconsin Here's an excerpt:
Walker rejected any suggestion that he had effectively handicapped the once-powerful labor groups with his legislation.
"People said at the time, 'Oh, you're trying to get rid of the unions,'" Walker recalled. "I said, 'No, I'm trying to have them show value.' Workers are making their value assumptions."
One labor law expert challenged Walker's statement on his motives.
"Absolutely disingenuous," said Paul Secunda, an associate professor at Marquette University Law School.
Secunda, who hasn't given to Democratic or Republican candidates in recent years, said it's clear that Act 10 was part of an orchestrated effort to undermine public employee unions, noting that GOP governors in Indiana, Ohio and Michigan had made similar proposals.
Walker's plan, the professor said, contains such punitive measures as requiring unions to recertify annually and barring employees from paying their union dues through payroll deductions.
Beyond that, the governor reduced the importance of these unions by prohibiting collective bargaining on anything but wage increases — and then only up to the rate of inflation. Secunda said even those public employees who agree with the idea of unions must be asking why they should pay dues to get the same pay raise as everybody else in government.
"It's not about liking or disliking unions," Secunda said.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
vol. 16 #2 (Spring 2013)
A Celebration of Baseball Unionism
- Paul D. Brachman & Bert Forsythe, Preface
- Ross E. Davies, Along Comes the Players Association: The Roots and Rise of Organized Labor in Major League Baseball
- Peter Miller, Introducing Marvin Miller
- Marvin Miller, Remarks: Reflections on Baseball and the MLBPA
- Roundtable Discussion on Marvin Miller, the MLBPA, and Baseball
- Michael Weiner, Marvin Miller’s Lasting Legacy
- The Honorable Nicholas M. Ohanesian, Trying the Carrot and Sparing the Stick: An Incentive Based Reform Proposal for NLRB Elections, Voluntary Recognition, and Withdrawal of Recognition
- Cynthia Estlund, Labor Law Reform Again? Reframing Labor Law as a Regulatory Project
Friday, July 12, 2013
At my request, Roy Adams (Ariel F. Sallows Chair of Human Rights (Emeritus), U. of Saskatchewan; Professor of Industrial Relations (Emeritus), McMaster University) has provided an update on the legal status of the right to strike in Canada. This has been a hot area in Canadian labor law and a recent decision by the Saskatchewan Appellate Court has only added flames to that fire. You can read Roy's entire commentary here.
Here is a taste of the piece:
After many years in power Saskatchewan’s moderately leftist New Democratic Party was defeated by the conservative “Saskatchewan Party” in 2007. The new government immediately introduced labor law changes one of which put considerable constraints on the right of public sector workers to strike.
Organized labor immediately went to court, claiming that the legislation offended the Freedom of Association clause in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At the first level (Court of the Queen’s Bench) the judge (Ball) agreed and ordered the government to revise the law (see Saskatchewan v. Saskatchewan Federation of Labour 2012 SKOB 62). Instead, the government appealed and, very recently, Ball’s ruling was reversed (see Saskatchewan v. Saskatchewan Federation of Labour 2013 SKCA 43).
Whereas most Canadian governments, even those controlled by conservative parties, are more cautious than governments in the USA about attacking organized labor, the urge to weaken unions and especially public sector unions – is on the rise. (Private sector unions are already weaker than they have been in decades). But in the Canadian environment there is a counter force to be contended with – international labor law which has grown in importance over the past half-dozen years primarily as a result of the Supreme Court finding it to be a persuasive source in interpreting the Charter’s Freedom of Association Clause (see Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27; aka BC Health Services).
Read the whole piece when you get the chance. It does a great job explicating the current status of the right to strike in Canada. I remarked to Roy that although Canadian labor proponents may feel that things have been rough for them in recent years, their American colleagues would feel lucky to even have freedom of association in the labor context or the freedom to strike given any form of constitutional consideration. Ditto any legal recognition by US Courts of (gasp!) international labor standards!
Friday, July 5, 2013
Today, we are happy to present a second piece of commentary by Charlie Morris (SMU Emeritus) on another federal appellate court decision, this time the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in U.S Chamber v. NLRB, striking down the NLRB's notice posting rules. You can downloand the full commentary here and you can also find it as well on Charlie's own blog.
Here is a taste from the introduction of the commentary:
This decision, issued June 14, 2013, holds that in promulgating the NLRA rule requiring employers to post notices advising employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act “the Board exceeds its authority” pursuant to step one of the two-step rule of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc.,467 U.S. 837 (1984), that governs judicial review of an agency’s interpretation of its enabling statute. That holding of an absence of statutory authorization is not only incorrect for a variety of valid reasons, it is directly contrary to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in City of Arlington v. FCC, Nos. 11-1545 & 11-1547, May 20, 2013, which the panel’s opinion (by Judge Duncan) acknowledged but―without explanation―chose not to follow.
The decision in City of Arlington responded to the question of “whether a court must defer under Chevron to an agency’s interpretation of a statutory ambiguity that concerns the agency’s statutory authority (that is, its jurisdiction).” Justice Scalia’s majority opinion stressed that “the distinction between ‘jurisdictional’ and ‘nonjurisdictional’ interpretation is a mirage” and noted that “there is no difference, insofar as the validity of agency action is concerned, between an agency’s exceeding the scope of its authority (its ‘jurisdiction’) and its exceeding authorized application of authority that it unquestionably has.” . . . .
Charlie again makes an exceedingly persuasive argument why the Fourth Circuit's decision in U.S. Chamber v. NLRB does not withstand closer scutiny. In the meantime, we all await to see if the en banc 4th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court may become enmeshed in this notice posting/compelled employer speech debate.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Lance Compa (Cornell ILR) has brought ot our attention a new paper from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the global unions UNI and IndustriALL countering employers' claims that a 2010 decision by the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association endorsed American management-style anti-union campaigns around the world. It is entitled: Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association: Finding a Balance (June 2013).
The case involved a Delta Airlines campaign against flight attendants' organizing. Lance worked on this along with Jeff Vogt of ITUC and Christy Hoffman of UNI, advised by Fred Feinstein of U. Maryland and Keith Ewing of Kings College London.
The International Organization of Employers, the Littler Mendelson law firm, and T-Mobile have been promoting the idea that the CFA's comments on employers' freedom of expression make NLRA Section 8(c) as interpreted by American courts the new international standard for employers' anti-union campaigns. The ITUC paper argues that the CFA decision did no such thing. On the contrary, the CFA reinforced the long-established standard of non-interference in workers' organizing efforts: that freedom of expression cannot be abused in ways that interfere with freedom of association.
This issue will continue to be sharply debated both in the ILO context and in union organizing campaign efforts that invoke international standards on freedom of association. All comments and thoughts are welcome.
Thanks to Harris Freeman (Western New England School of Law) for passign along how to get a hold of Michael Grabell's excellent piece of journalism on exploitation in the temp staffing industry, titled "The Expendables: How the temps who power corporate giants are getting crushed."
Timely topic given recent posts on temporary employees.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Unions are key repeat players before the Supreme Court. Their involvement extends beyond what one might expect (labor) and extends to key cases involving federalism, discrimination, affirmative action, the First Amendment, and workplace health and safety, among others. Though scholars have written about how other union activity, like collective bargaining, impacts non-union workers, the role and impact of union participation in non-labor litigation has largely been ignored in the public debate over unions in America and in the academic literature about what unions do. This Article focuses on unions’ Supreme Court litigation that arises outside of the context of traditional labor law; in order to show how union-made law affects interests beyond those of the labor movement, its members, and unionized employers. It reveals how union-made law has had significant effects on the structure of American government and society.
This Article first describes the many areas in which union Supreme Court litigation has had important social effects extending far beyond core labor interests, and explains why, as a practical matter, unions are well situated to bring or fund these cases. Next, the Article explores three characteristics that have the potential to shape unions’ litigation positions: First, unions are more likely than other social movement litigators to litigate defensively, as well as offensively; second, unions operate based on majority rule; and third, unions may use litigation to support bargaining positions. The Article shows how these dynamics have played out in past cases, sometimes with surprising results. Finally, the article concludes with some observations regarding declining union density in this country.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
We are thrilled to welcome as a guest commentator to the Workplace Prof Blog our distinguished colleague, Charlie Morris. As many of you know, Charlie is professor of law emeritus at the Dedman School of Law at SMU. He is an internationally renowned labor law scholar and authority on the NLRA and well-known for his take on members-only bargaining units. He wrote about minority-bargaining in 2005 in The Blue Eagle At Work: Reclaiming Democratic Rights In The American Workplace. More recently, Charlie has started his own blog, Charles J. Morris on Labor Relations, featuring his thoughts on various labor law topics.
Here, Charlie shares with us his thoughts on the recent DC Circuit decision concerning employee-rights posters and employer's free speech. Here is a taste of his commentary (which you can download in full at this link here):
A recent decision by a panel of judges of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals in National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) v. NLRB, in an Opinion by Judge A. Raymond Randolph, holds that a rule issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) on August 30, 2011, that requires employers to display a poster that advises employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act) is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment free-speech rights of employers. The New York Times’ characterization of that decision as “outrageous” expresses the natural reaction to a ruling that uses the cover of free speech to suppress free speech. Judge Randolph’s decision raises the critical question of whether by final judicial determination this notice-posting rule will be deemed a violation of the Constitution, for if so, most governmentally required notice postings (both federal and state) that are commonly displayed in millions of American workplaces will no longer be mandatory. Based on established case law, the final answer to that question should be that the rule does not violate the First Amendment; thus the existing familiar notice- postings will safely continue.
This is an excellent piece for both those who are unfamiliar with this area of labor law, as well as those who know much about this decision and are interested in a well-thought out and comprehensive perspective. We look forward to Charlie sharing more of his posts with us as a guest commentator in the days and weeks to come.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Patrick O'Donnell (Philosophy, Santa Barbara City College) may be known to some of you through his blogging at Ratio Juris and Religious Left Law or other places. He is also a compiler of bibliographies extraordinaire. He has sent us an updated version of his bibliography on Workers, the World of Work, and Labor Law: Download World of Work and Labor Law Bibliography
Patrick has other bibliographies available that might be of interest to readers, as well, including:
- Animal Ethics, Rights, and Law
- Death and Dying
- Dreams and Dreaming
- The Emotions
- Environmental and Ecological Worldviews
- The Ethics, Economics, and Politics of Global Distributive Justice
- Freudian and Post-Freudian Psychology
- Human Rights
- Mass Media: Politics, Political Economy, and Law
- Punishment and Prison
- Socio-Political Conflict Resolution and Nonviolence
- Vietnam War
If you are interested in any of those other topics, I'm sure Patrick would be willing to share them.
Call for Papers for the Twelfth International Conference in Commemoration of Marco Biagi and Young Scholars' Workshop
Here is the Call for Papers for the Twelfth International Conference in Commemoration of Marco Biagi, which will be held in Modena, Italy at the Marco Biagi Foundation of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, on Tuesday, March 18 – Wednesday, March 19, 2014. The theme of the conference is “Employment and Social Rights: An Evolving Scenario.” More information about the conference is contained within the call.
Additionally, Susan tells us about a Call for Papers for the Third Young Scholars' Workshop in Labour Relations, which will be held at the Marco Biagi Foundation on Monday, March 17, 2014, the day before the conference begins. This programming is designed for PhD candidates and post-doctoral researchers. Those selected will present a paper for discussion at the workshop. Those not selected may nonetheless be invited for a poster session, which will be held during the conference.
Questions should be directed to Susan's good friend and colleague Professor Iacopo Senatori: firstname.lastname@example.org. Iacopo is handling the organizational aspects of the conference and the Young Scholars’ Workshop.
Monday, June 24, 2013
In what can probably be described as among the least surprising news to come out of the Supreme Court this week, the Court today granted cert. in Noel Canning. You can read our previous posts on the case here, here, here, and here.
The briefing and arguments in this case should be interesting. I'll be especially curious about the extent to which the government will try to defend the pro forma session appointments rather than just attacking the D.C. Circuit's incredibly broad decision.
Also, the Court granted cert. in UNITE HERE v. Mulhall. This deals with Section 302, which makes it unlawful for an "“employer . . . to pay, lend, or deliver, any money or other thing of value . . . to any labor organization, or any officer or employee thereof, which represents, seeks to represent, or would admit to membership, any of the employees of such employer . . . ." Anti-union folks have argued that certain nuetrality agreements and other promises to give employee contact info violate this provision. Most courts have rejected that. In Mulhall, the Eleventh Circuit was more open to the argument, although still stressed that there's only a problem if the agreements implicate Section 302's policy by showing evidence of an intent to corrupt a union or were made in the face of extortion. This grant of cert. worries me. I don't see a reason to take cert. unless the Court wants to expand Section 302 (theoretically they could say Mulhall went too far, but I'm guessing that's not the case). I don't think Section 302 was intended to prohibit neutrality agreements, but that may be too juicy a target for the Court majority. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Joe Mastrosimone (Washburn) has just posted on SSRN his article, "Limiting Information in the Information Age: The NLRB's Misguided Attempt to Squelch Employer Speech," which will appear int he Washburn Law Journal. The abstract:
The central promise of the National Labor Relations Act is freedom of choice to American workers to decide whether they wish to be represented by a labor union. At the same time, studies show that employees’ choices are not always the product of uncoerced freewill. Many attribute employer coercion as hampering employee choice. That choice had traditionally been made through a secret ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. That election has generally been held approximately six to eight weeks after the petition for an election and after the union and the employer have “campaigned” for employee support.
To correct employer coercion problems, the NLRB has altered its representation process to drastically shorten the period from petition to election. That shortened window significantly reduces the time in which an employer can communicate with his or her employees about the choice they are about to make in the soon-to-come election.
The article concludes that attempts to shorten the campaign and cut out the employer’s role in the process are contrary to Congressional intent, to the First Amendment, and to the information gathering purpose of the campaign. Those conclusions are based on an examination of the legislative history of the Taft-Hartley Act’s inclusion of “the employer free speech provision” in Section 8(c), the court’s longstanding treatment of employer and union campaign speech as protected by the First Amendment, and studies of political campaigns that show that the information gathered by voters during a campaign is meaningful and helpful to the electorate and that the gathering of information is related to the length of the campaign.
The article concludes that (1) the shortened campaign seeks to prevent unlawful coercion by improperly and unwisely limiting this protected and valuable information and (2) offers other means to combat unlawful coercion that respect the employer’s right and the employees’ need for information from both the employer and the union.
Joe's criticism of quicker elections is well thought out, even though many will disagree with him (I've come out somewhere in the middle by advocating for shorter elections, but not too short). No matter your views on the timetable, he makes some interesting proposals as replacements for quick elections, including staying employer's ability to terminate employees during the critical period and requiring employers to provide information to support predictions of plant closures and similar costs of unionization.
A very interesting article--check it out.