Log in

View Full Version : Terrible News For Unions; Pro-Labor Federal Rule Struck Down By Appeals Court



B5C
8th May 2013, 03:27
Terrible News For Unions; Pro-Labor Federal Rule Struck Down By Appeals Court


An appeals court has unfortunately struck down a federal law that would have required the display of a poster in many businesses notifying workers of their rights to join a union for collective bargaining, the right to refuse to join a union, and the right to not be harassed by representatives of a union.


Workers’ rights are no longer a broad issue, it seems. Union membership is waning, and business groups are making successful bids in their fight against unionization. In a time when tax laws and corporate cronyism have created a huge problem for low-wage workers, unionization might be more important than ever, and the growing trend of apathy in the workplace isn’t good for the future of laborers.


The rule, instituted by the National Labor Relations Board, would have made it necessary for millions of businesses to put a sign up for employees measuring 11 by 17 inches instructing them about labor union laws and their rights to bargain for better wages/working conditions. Due to take effect last year, it has been held up in lower courts which were split on whether the rule was valid or not before the appeals court made the final decision.




Salon reports (http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/appeals_court_strikes_down_union_poster_rule/) on the unfortunate decision, remarking,

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the National Labor Relations Board violated employers’ free speech rights in in trying to force them to display the posters or face charges of committing an unfair labor practice.
Unions had hoped the posters would help them boost falling membership, but business groups argued that they were too one-sided in favor of unionization.
Those arguments were successful, but don’t actually make a whole lot of sense:

A three-judge panel of the court agreed, ruling that the National Labor Relations Act protects the rights of employers not to publish the government’s poster if they find the language in it objectionable. That protection is similar to the First Amendment freedom of speech, said Judge A. Raymond Randolph, who was appointed to the court in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush. (Source (http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/appeals_court_strikes_down_union_poster_rule/))
If business had the best interests of employees, instead of profits (not that there is anything wrong with that; businesses are there to make money, after all), there would be no need for labor unions. There would be no need to collectively bargain for better treatment. So, if workers have the right to do so, of course it is going to be found “objectionable” by those businesses to display such a poster.


The National Association of Manufacturers was happy with this victory, however, as was their President, Jay Timmons, who was quoted as saying (http://www.salon.com/2013/05/07/appeals_court_strikes_down_union_poster_rule/), “Today, manufacturers claim an important victory in the fight against an activist NLRB and its aggressive agenda.”
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/07/terrible-news-for-unions-pro-labor-federal-rule-struck-down-by-appeals-court/



The bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie owned courts won a major victory. :(

A Revolutionary Tool
8th May 2013, 03:38
A "major victory"? You think anybody gives a fuck about the numerous posters in the breakroom about this kind of stuff. Not once did I hear talk of unionization or see someone reading that poster in the breakroom at McDonald's. I really think I'm the only one there who knew that poster even existed.

melvin
8th May 2013, 03:56
A "major victory"? You think anybody gives a fuck about the numerous posters in the breakroom about this kind of stuff. Not once did I hear talk of unionization or see someone reading that poster in the breakroom at McDonald's. I really think I'm the only one there who knew that poster even existed.agreed. definitely not a "major victory". but still, this is a step in the wrong direction and even though it's not a major thing, it could definitely be a part of an overall negative trend for labor laws in the US.

Klaatu
8th May 2013, 04:03
There is something that no one ever thinks about, and that is the fact the a corporation IS a collective. And it has GREAT POWER over the individual.
The individual (worker) has NO power. The INDIVIDUAL must have protections against this Capitalist Collective.

Sure, the capitalist (and his supporters) can argue that the worker has 'the right to quit' if he so chooses. But where does he go? Right into the clutches of yet another capitalist collective (corporation) And what sort of choice is that? :crying:

A Revolutionary Tool
8th May 2013, 04:19
Yeah it's not a step in the right direction but I don't think it's really a step in the wrong direction either. It's really inconsequential in my opinion considering these posters haven't done anything anyways positive or negative.

B5C
8th May 2013, 05:21
Posters are there to remind people of their rights. Those posters help me battle my old bosses at Rent-A-Center dozens of times.

Os Cangaceiros
8th May 2013, 06:57
Maybe a useful reference tool, but that's about all it is. It's not like the actual rights referenced on the poster are being taken away (at least not by this particular ruling), so I don't really see this as a devastating blow or anything like that...

B5C
8th May 2013, 07:26
Maybe a useful reference tool, but that's about all it is. It's not like the actual rights referenced on the poster are being taken away (at least not by this particular ruling), so I don't really see this as a devastating blow or anything like that...

If you keep workers ignorant about their rights. It would be easier to exploit and control them. That is the issue at hand. Most employees at work barely know what their rights are.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna
8th May 2013, 08:28
required the display of a poster in many businesses notifying workers of their rights to join a union for collective bargaining, the right to refuse to join a union, and the right to not be harassed by representatives of a union.

I'm not sure I think this being struck down is bad...

Desy
9th May 2013, 16:47
All these reactionary comments are making me pull my hair out. I'm really refraining from personal attacks on some of you. You remind me of the workers at my factory. It's depressing to see some leftist giving up on the working class. I tried to start a union in my right to work state, and I'm glad I looked at the 'rights'. If I didn't I would have been bullied and silenced, and it also helped me show people they didn't have to be scared of being bullied or fired from the company.

This is a huge loss for the working class. Any info loss to help the working class unionize ,against an oppressive company, is a horrible thing. Not only for the quality of life for the worker, but also for the struggle of the people against the bourgeios.

If you think this is 'not a win or loss' or not a big loss, you're either a petite bourgeois, reactionary scum or a left-comm. And the struggle against the elite captialist's doesn't need any of them.

Watermelon Man
10th May 2013, 14:09
It's another small attempt to undermine the influence of unions, and they all add up in the end. Gradual, incremental shifts towards marginalising unions must always be resisted, because the sidelining of unions is the first step in ensuring a clear path to strip away your rights at work.