Indiana union bill: Even with Dems AWOL, lawmakers move closer to vote (The Christian Science Monitor)

Chicago – Most Indiana Democrats were absent from the House floor in Indianapolis Friday, the third day of session they skipped to protest a proposed bill they say is harmful to unions.

But their absence Friday did not prevent a House committee from hearing more than five hours of testimony on the bill in question, which would ban negotiations between a union and company if workers are forced to pay fees for representation.

The committee ended the day by voting to send the bill to the House for a full vote, which Republicans say will happen next week. However, a quorum in that chamber is needed for the vote. Actions by Democrats suggest they are not worried about the fines, at $1,000 per day per lawmaker, that they face for not showing up.

RECOMMENDED: Top 5 fastest-growing states 

Republicans will get their vote, but it’s a matter of when, says Brian Vargus, a political scientist at Indiana University in Indianapolis. Democrats are reluctant to give the Republican majority a victory because it may weaken union support.

“Unions are big contributors to the Democrats, and they feel with the decline of unionization, it would solidify Republicans. It simply comes down to that,” Mr. Vargus says.

The area’s diminished role in the steel and automotive industries has resulted in declining membership for Indiana unions. In 2010, the share of workers in Indiana who were unionized was 10.9 percent, lower than the national average of 11.9 percent, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Last year, Indiana’s Republican leadership passed a collective-bargaining law that weakens the negotiating power of public unions in the state. The so-called right-to-work bill being contemplated this session would further clamp down on union activity.

Collective-bargaining legislation has been a bumpier road for neighboring states in the Midwest. For example, although Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) saw his collective-bargaining bill become law, it was not without a major fight that continues today with a recall effort to remove him from office. In Ohio, voters repudiated a collective-bargaining law in November. And in Michigan, Gov. Rick Snyder (R) is on record as saying it is not the time to push for such legislation, which he called “divisive” last month.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) and House Speaker Brian Bosma (R) are ignoring the potential backlash because they probably see it as an opportunity “to weaken the Democrats in the state” in an election year, says Vargus. “If they can limit union power and union strength, they will feel it will benefit their candidates,” he says of the state Republican leadership.

Friday’s testimony came from both sides of the issue. Keith Busse, a former chief executive officer of Steel Dynamics in Fort Wayne, Ind., described the bill as a “jobs boon” because it would convince companies outside the state that Indiana is business-friendly and prepared to help create job opportunities.

The NFL Players Association also weighed in, most likely because this year’s Super Bowl is set in Indianapolis on Feb. 5. In a statement, the organization, which is based in Washington D.C., criticized the legislation, calling it “a political ploy designed to destroy basic workers’ rights.” The statement added, “it’s the wrong priority for Indiana.”

Democrats say they will not return for a vote until Republicans agree to hold a series of public hearings around the state to justify the bill’s passage to voters. Republicans say they will probably start enforcing the $1,000 penalty next week.

That threat has already been enough for three Democrats to show up since Wednesday, which was the first day of the session. One of those Democrats, Vanessa Summers of Indianapolis, told reporters Thursday that she “cannot stand the fine” because she is a single mother with a son in college.

“I’m on the right side of history. So whatever happens is going to bless me,” Representative Summers said.

Online fundraising efforts via ActBlue, a Democratic political-action committee, launched Friday to help offset costs for the Indiana Democrats still staying away.

RECOMMENDED: Top 5 fastest-growing states 

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here

Indiana braces for Wisconsin-style showdown over union bill - again (The Christian Science Monitor)

Chicago – Democrats in Indiana are replaying a scene from last year by refusing to allow the state’s House to come to session and vote on a controversial bill that they say will weaken unions.

The Indiana House returned Wednesday for a 10-week session. On the agenda: a so-called right-to-work bill that would ban negotiations between a union and company if workers are forced to pay fees for representation.

Democrats did not show up for the legislative session and instead remained in private meetings, which prevented the Republican majority from having a quorum to start the session. Indiana law is written so a quorum is needed for every vote, whether or not it involves spending money.

RECOMMENDED: Top 5 fastest-growing states

Democrats are hesitant to call their actions a walkout, a term that was last year when the same legislative proposal prompted the same lawmakers to flee to Illinois for five weeks. They returned once Republicans removed the bill from a vote in the 2011 legislative session.

This time around, Democrats will not return until Republicans agree to hold public hearings around the state, says minority leader Pat Bauer of South Bend. “It’s a filibuster until we can get the truth. For now, it’s about the bill,” Representative Bauer told reporters Wednesday.

Bauer said that while their actions are indefinite, he and his colleagues have no intention of exiting the state.

How long they stay away is up to the public, says Brian Vargus, a political scientist at Indiana University in Indianapolis.

“You can’t tell exactly how far [the Democrats] will go until you see more of the public reaction to them not showing up again,” Mr. Vargus says. “It’s impossible if it comes to any kind of vote. The only hope they have is if it goes before the public.”

Republicans are promoting the right-to-work bill as a job creator that will drive businesses to the state for a business-friendly environment. They also say the bill gives workers a choice on whether they want to commit to union dues.

Democrats see the bill as a backhanded way to weaken unions. In a statement Wednesday, Bauer said the current legislation package proposed by Republicans is staked on “an anti-paycheck, anti-job bill that will lower wages, cut pensions and benefits, and increase workplace deaths.”

If the right-to-work bill does become law, Indiana would become the 23rd state with such legislation – though it would be the first in America’s traditional manufacturing belt. The last state to adopt this kind of rule was Oklahoma in 2001.

Republicans say that the Democrats’ actions are stalling votes on other important issues including education, a statewide smoking ban, a phaseout of the state’s inheritance tax, and a $1.3 billion overhaul of mass transit in central Indiana.

The Democrats’ filibuster is a “childish tactic,” Rob Beiswenger, executive director of the Indiana Right to Work Committee, told a local television station Wednesday. “Not only are [Democrats] stopping the right-to-work bill; they are stopping every single bill.”

For each day in session that Democrats miss, they face a $1,000 fine per lawmaker – a penalty that became law last year following that exodus. Republicans have yet to say if they will issue the fines.

The call by Democrats to hold public meetings is not unwarranted, according to a poll conducted this past November by Ball State University’s Bowen Center for Public Affairs in Muncie, Ind. It found that while 27 percent of Indiana residents support right to work and 24 percent oppose it, 48 percent are undecided.

RECOMMENDED: Top 5 fastest-growing states 

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here

Republicans aim to quash new union rules (AP)

WASHINGTON – Republicans are maneuvering to short-circuit an effort by Democrats on the National Labor Relations Board to approve rules that would quicken the pace of union elections.

The GOP member of the labor board is threatening to resign his post, which would deny the board a quorum and quash the entire process. At the same time, the House is poised Wednesday to approve a GOP bill aimed at short-circuiting moves they consider anti-business. That measure is unlikely to go anywhere in the Senate.

The developments are the latest sign of how intensely business groups are opposing any moves that could help organized labor make new inroads at companies that have long opposed unions.

At the labor board, the Democratic majority was set to take up a proposal Wednesday that would simplify procedures and shorten deadlines for holding union elections after employees at a work site gather enough signatures.

But the board's lone GOP member, Brian Hayes, has threatened to quit the agency over his objection to the planned rules, an unprecedented move that would render the board powerless to approve any new measures at all. The board needs at least three members to make any decisions.

If Hayes leaves, only two members — both Democrats — would remain instead of the five members it's supposed to have. Congressional Republicans have blocked President Barack Obama from filling the other two vacancies at the board.

Under current rules, union elections typically take place within 45-60 days after a union gathers enough signatures to file a petition. Republicans contend the new rules could shorten that time to as little as 10 days.

Unions claim companies often abuse current rules to file frivolous appeals, holding up elections for months or even years. But business groups claim the plan would give unions "quickie" elections without leaving employers enough time to respond.

The board's majority has been rushing to approve the new rules before the end of the year, when the term of one of the two Democratic members expires. A modified plan being considered Wednesday is a limited version of more sweeping rules proposed earlier this year. It would not, for example, require employers to provide a list of worker phone numbers and email addresses in voter lists provided to unions.

A final vote on the rules would take place next month, unless Hayes leaves the board.

Hayes has vowed not to participate at the Wednesday meeting and threatened to resign his post over his objection to the rules, according to a letter from the board's chairman, Mark Pearce, circulated last week. Hayes has declined requests for comment.

Union officials have decried Hayes' threat as a bullying tactic that undermines the board.

"We are shocked by the idea that a partisan difference would shut down the workings of a federal agency," said Peter Colavito, director of government relations for the Service Employees International Union.

Minnesota Rep. John Kline, GOP chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, blamed the board's Democratic majority and called on Pearce to withdraw "his ambush election proposal."

The bitter feud between Hayes and the board's two Democrats is the latest sign of how polarizing the debate over union rights has become. Board members often quarrel over policy differences, depending on which political party is in the majority. But labor experts say a board member has never resigned for the sole purpose of preventing a vote.

"As far as I'm aware, it's unprecedented," said William Gould, a former NLRB chairman during the Clinton administration and now a professor at Stanford Law School. "The board has become more polarized, but this takes it to a different level entirely."

In the House, meanwhile, Republicans are expected to pass a bill that would override any changes to NLRB election rules. The measure would delay any vote on a union for at least 35 days after a petition is filed.

The bill would also overturn a recent board ruling that made it easier for smaller groups of workers within companies to organize bargaining units. Business groups claim so-called "micro-bargaining unions" would allow unions to cherry-pick certain departments or employees within a company.

"Congress must act now to thwart the NLRB's radical regulatory maneuvers," said David French, a vice president for government relations at the National Retail Federation, the world's largest retail trade group.

The federation, whose members include Best Buy Co. and Macy's Inc., claims the board's proposed rules would limit workers access to "information needed to make an informed decision about union representation."

California Rep. George Miller, top Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce committee, has denounced the measure as an "anti-worker, anti-family bill" that would undermine worker rights.

The bill is not expected to go far in the Senate, where Democratic leaders are not likely to bring it to a vote.

___

Follow Sam Hananel on Twitter at http://twitter.com/shananel

View the original article here

Rules would speed up union elections (AP)

WASHINGTON – The National Labor Relations Board proposed sweeping new rules Tuesday to allow unions to hold workplace elections much more quickly, winning praise from Democrats and labor leaders who called it a long overdue fix to a broken system riddled with roadblocks and delays to union organizing.

But the move was quickly condemned by business groups and their GOP supporters as another in a series of moves by the board to placate organized labor and tie the hands of employers.

The board is proposing to streamline a union election process that currently has workers vote within 45-60 days after a union gathers enough signatures to file a petition, a time many companies use to discourage workers from unionizing.

The new plan could cut that time by days or even weeks — depending on the case — by simplifying procedures, deferring litigation, allowing electronic filing of petitions and other documents and setting shorter deadlines for hearings and filings.

If the board makes the rules final, following a period for public comment, it would be a victory for labor unions that long have complained about employers using procedural delays and litigation to hold up elections and intimidate workers. Some employers use the extra time to hire so-called union busting consulting firms to produce videotapes, draft talking points or create brochures to deter unionizing.

"Our current system has become a broken, bureaucratic maze that stalls and stymies workers' choices," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said. He hailed the proposal as "a common sense approach to clean up an outdated system."

Not so, said Wyoming Sen. Mike Enzi, ranking Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, who called it "an outrageous assault on America's job creators and workers."

"The question everyone should be asking is why the need to rush?" Enzi said. "Is it because union membership is at an all-time low? If employees want to unionize they should be allowed to do so, but to ram elections through before important questions are asked and answered does a disservice to everyone involved."

Usually an obscure federal agency, the board has grown into a major political target since its acting general counsel filed a lawsuit in April that accuses Boeing Co. of retaliating against union workers in Washington state by placing a new assembly line for the Dreamliner 787 in South Carolina, a right-to-work state.

The latest NLRB proposal has reignited a growing debate over whether the agency is simply doing its job or overreaching.

Union membership has declined steadily from about 20 percent in the 1980s to 11.9 percent of all workers and just 6.9 percent of the private sector. Many members blame increasingly aggressive anti-union tactics, but they have tried without success to pass legislation in Congress that would address those problems.

Labor leaders made a major push in 2009 for Congress to pass so-called card check legislation that would have made it easier for unions to organize workers by signing cards instead of holding secret-ballot elections. But the measure failed to garner a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Since then, labor has pinned its hopes for a revival on action at the NLRB, the Labor Department and other sympathetic agencies.

The rule proposed on Tuesday could be one step in helping unions halt the membership slide and organize more workers.

It would:

• Allow electronic filing of petitions and other documents to speed up processing.

• Set pre-election hearings to begin 7 days after a petition is filed.

• Defer litigation of eligibility issues involving less than 20 percent of the bargaining unit until after the election.

• Eliminate pre-election appeals of rulings by an NLRB regional director.

• Reduce from 7 to 2 days the time for an employer to provide an electronic list of eligible voters.

Union officials say the problem under the current system is that procedural delays and needless litigation can postpone some votes by months or even years. One study by Stanford Business School professor John-Paul Ferguson showed that 35 percent of the time that workers file a petition for a union election, an election never happens.

Joe Trauger, vice president of human resources policy for the National Association of Manufacturers, said that in 2009, labor unions won 68.5 percent of representation elections. And 95 percent of all elections are conducted within 56 days of the filing petition submitted by the union.

"These so-called snap elections are the latest attempt by the NLRB to effectively do for the unions what Congress wouldn't — stack the deck in their favor," Trauger said.

Anticipating the critics, board chairwoman Wilma Liebman issued a statement predicting the new proposal would be controversial, but she insisted the agency has a duty to resolve union elections "quickly, fairly and accurately."

"That controversy is unfortunate, but it is not a good reason for the board to abandon its responsibilities," Liebman said.

Jumping to her defense was California Rep. George Miller, ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

"Ideologues will undoubtedly criticize and scaremonger over this modest, commonsense proposal," Miller said. "In reality, the proposal will reduce costly litigation for all parties and reduce unnecessary conflict in the workplace."

The proposal was approved by the board's majority, led 3-1 by Democrats. The board's lone Republican, Brian Hayes, issued a vigorous dissent, saying the proposal would result in the type of "quickie elections" union leaders have long sought. Hayes claimed elections could be held in as little as 10 days to 21 days from the filing of a petition, giving employers less of a chance to make their case.

"Make no mistake, the principal purpose for this radical manipulation of our election process is to minimize or, rather, to effectively eviscerate an employer's legitimate opportunity to express its views about collective bargaining," Hayes wrote.

The board will take 75 days to review comments and replies before making a decision on whether the rule should become final.

View the original article here