At a recent speech, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka proclaimed, "We won't quit until the EFCA becomes the law of the land and everyone who wants a union can have a union." But what about employees in a workforce that do not want a union. Shouldn't they have a corresponding right not to have a union affect their employment? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
But thats not the way the National Labor Relations Act works. Under the Act, majority rules, and the will of the minority is subject to the wishes of the majority. While it is true in right to work states that employees do not have to join a labor organization, if a union is the collective bargaining agent for a bargaining unit that includes the employee's job classification, the union's negotiations and the union contract affect the employee non-member. Following Trumka's logic, that should not be the case. Those who want union representation should have it, and those that do not should not be forced to endure it. Perhaps its time to experiment by allowing non-majority unions who represent only those employees who voluntarily choose to join. Those who choose not to select union representation would be free to negotiate on their own. There are a lot of reasons this approach was rejected under the Wagner Act, but maybe its time to revisit the concept.

There is a compelling case that the National Labor Relations Act's stated purpose, to reduce economic disruption by imposing collective bargaining, has wildly succeeded over the last 75 years. Succeeded so much that unions are considered increasingly irrelevant to many workers. This post calls for a return to active use of labor's economic weapons, the strike, in particular, as well as other acts like secondary boycotts which are expressly circumscribed by the NLRA. The poster suggests unions should engage in establishing new legal identities to shield them from liability, not unlike many businesses do. Interesting and provocative analysis.

Acting NLRB General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, issued a General Counsel's memorandum encouraging the Regions to seek more effective remedies for unfair labor practices committed during organizational campaigns. This adds to his previous instructions to seek injunctive relief for discriminatory discharges during organizing campaigns, previous post here. Included in the new memo are certain limited access remedies including access to company bulletin boards, forced reading of the Board's remedial notices and early access to employee names and addresses.

Here is a young author that enthusiastically embraces repeal of the National Labor Relations Act and embracing strikes and boycotts to empower the masses.

On March 11, the NLRB requested en banc consideration of a divided 9th Circuit panel opinion in McDermott v. Ampersand Publ'g LLC d/b/a Santa Barbara News-Press, 9th Cir., No. 08-56202. In that case the majority found a 10(j) injunction in favor of reporters asserting a violation of the NLRA would run afoul of the employer's First Amendment rights. Our previous post on the panel decision is here.

The National Basketball Association (NBA) wants to cut down on complaints and gestures which show insufficient respect for the referees or the game. Arguing a call or other offensive conduct, even if not directed at the game official may result in a technical foul. Technical fouls can also lead to player fines. The players association file unfair labor practices in the 2006-07 season, and again threatens legal action. Griping at work about work rules certainly is protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Can the league establish a business justification for the muzzling of the complaints? Would a technical foul remedy do as much injury to the game as complaining?

Here is a pretty good review (pro-labor) of the case for permitting minority unionization which would circumvent any need to prove a union's majority status.

The Cowboys and Eagles are reported to have joined the Saints in unanimously voting to decertify the National Football League Players Association (NFLPA).