Labor

The recently approved resolution by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to update the union election process stands to enhance greatly the freedom of workers to exercise their rights. The current system allows management to impede union elections almost indefinitely with bureaucratic loopholes that promote excessive delays and endless appeals.

Thankfully, the NLRB’s commonsense rule changes will modernize an archaic system. The old adage is true—justice delayed is justice denied—and the Board is finally taking steps toward fairer elections.
 
But for months, GOP legislators have reduced themselves to puppets of their corporate backers and right-wing pundits by interfering with the Board’s ability to protect labor rights. Republican lawmakers have sent threatening letters to the NLRB, convened endless hearings to undermine the agency’s authority, and introduced a string of legislation intended to undermine the Board’s ability to pursue justice for Americans whose rights are violated on the job. 

The Nov. 28 op-ed by Steve Bartlett and Richard Hunt, “Financial Services: Coming to the Aid of Small Business,” misses an important aspect of the small business lending puzzle.

While these two respected leaders of two critically important lending trade associations  accurately describe the uptick in small business lending that we have seen this year, many aspiring entrepreneurs and existing franchise owners and job creators are still being held back from taking out loans to open or expand their business.

According to an IFA analysis by FranDATA, lending to franchise businesses in 2011 will fall short of the forecasted demand for growth by 20 percent – a shortfall causing 82,000 new jobs not to be created as well as keeping 8,000-10,000 new franchise establishments from opening their doors this year.
 

I recently had the pleasure to speak at a conference hosted by the Financial Markets Law Committee in London on the state of derivatives regulation in the U.S. and Europe. Among the hot topics of discussion were concerns over the unintended consequences of the new Dodd-Frank rules and the extraterritorial reach of the law. I focused my remarks on how the indemnification provision in Dodd-Frank is Exhibit A for both of these concerns.

New rules in the U.S. and European will require cleared and uncleared swaps transactions to be reported to repositories, which are essentially giant databases that hold the underlying data on these trades. This information is essential for market transparency because when the data is consolidated in a central repository, such as DTCC’s Trade Information Warehouse for credit default swaps (CDS), regulators worldwide can see market positions and monitor concentrations of risk.

These are strange times at the National Labor Relations Board. First, the Board has endured months of relentless right-wing attacks. Now, in an unprecedented move, Brian Hayes, the sole Republican member of the NLRB – which will be reduced to two members and lacking a quorum by the year’s end – is threatening to resign in order to sabotage a long-awaited new rule on union certification elections.

In an op-ed in The Hill, former Bush NLRB chairman Peter Schaumber, a prominent critic of the Board, blames the current shambles on the allegedly shabby way Hayes has been treated by his fellow Board members, both Democrats. But Hayes’ resignation threat has been coming for months.

When Chairman Wilma Liebman’s term ended in late August, right wing groups and prominent Republicans immediately called for Hayes to step down in order to incapacitate the Board. Senator Graham stated that, given the NLRB’s efforts to enforce the law more effectively,  “Inoperable is progress,” whereas South Carolina Governor Nikki Halley would “support anything that would disband the NLRB.” Perhaps the only surprise is that Hayes has taken so long to follow their advice.

The two remaining Democrats on the National Labor Relations Board are prepared to flout long-standing processes , traditions , and legal requirements for Board deliberations in order to force a “quickie election” rule on workers, employers, and their lone Republican colleague Brian Hayes.  Board Member Hayes should carefully consider whether or not to protect the institutional integrity of the Board by participating. 

On November 10, Hayes was informed by the current Board Chairman Mark Pearce that Pearce and Board Member Craig Becker plan to issue a final quickie election rule before Becker’s term ends next month. If Mr. Hayes does not have sufficient time to review and consider the rule and write a dissent, should that be his decision, so be it.  Hayes reported these and other actions in an unusual November 18 letter to Congressman John Kline, Chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee.  

The majority’s extraordinary action contradicts 60 years of Board practice. Historically, the Board will not issue a major decision without the affirmative vote of three members of a Board. The Board has five members at full strength—three from the President’s party and two from the opposing party.  This wise practice has always promoted thoughtful analysis by encouraging dialogue among members with differing views.  

I spent the first week of November in Washington D.C., talking with anyone willing to listen about my company’s efforts to solve the military to civilian career transition problem (my company Fidelis is a Silicon Valley-based venture-backed tech startup). As a third generation Marine Officer, I’ve seen how difficult the transition can be.

So I know that it’s not a problem that one tech company can solve on its own.  



During 42 separate meetings, I was refreshed to find a Washington that is actively looking for innovation, that is looking for ways to use technology to get more results from the same or fewer resources.  I found that in most cases, skepticism turns to collaboration when people see solutions that use existing resources and that leverage the web to enhance outcomes.  



What America needs with nine percent unemployment, a 15 trillion dollar debt and three quarters of its citizens convinced the nation is going in the wrong direction is economic advice from a labor professor?  The op-ed by John Logan in The Hill titled "Labor law for the 1%" defends the forced unionization policies espoused by Big Labor and completely ignores the voices of employers struggling to survive in a terrible economy.

Logan's desperate arguments against the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act are those of an individual vested in growing labor's ranks whether or not it kills jobs and results in business closures.  The overtly political attacks completely ignore what is actually happening to employers due to the burdensome and unnecessary regulations mandated by government bureaucrats - who like many academics - have not created jobs or met payroll.

Starting in early 2011, the GOP has launched an all-out attack on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) the likes of which has not been seen in six decades.

In the latest development, Hill Republicans are promoting a bill — the ludicrously misnamed Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act (WDFA) — that would further undermine the weak labor rights that still exist in the United States. The bill is neither democratic nor fair but tells us much about the extreme policies of Congressional Republicans on labor rights.

It’s not every day that you get a call with an invitation to testify before Congress – especially if you’re from Missoula, Montana. Running a small business in Missoula, you can’t get much further from Washington, DC, and I don’t just mean on a map.
 
So imagine my surprise when that call came last week. I was invited to share my experience with the Affordable Care Act’s small business tax credit at a hearing of the House Ways & Means Committee’s Oversight Subcommittee. It was a chance I couldn’t pass up.
 
I co-founded and co-direct a building materials reuse center called Home ReSource in Missoula. We collect and sell re-usable building materials to reduce waste, build healthier communities, and promote a more vibrant and sustainable local economy.
 

This week, Congress will be voting on an amendment that will dramatically affect the fate of fishermen and seafood consumers alike. This critical amendment, introduced by North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones, would stop the government from creating certain new catch shares programs. Catch shares are a controversial form of fisheries management that rewards those who fish the fastest and hardest at the expense of small to mid-sized fishing operations.

Catch shares supporters are working hard to kill the amendment and give our fisheries over to big business the way that factory farms have been given over to big agriculture companies at the expense of small farmers. Ultimately, this industrialization of our seafood industry hurts not only smaller business but also consumers, who suffer from a poorer quality, more consolidated food system. 
 
Because there is so much at risk and so many supporting catch shares on behalf of big business, my consumer advocacy group, Food & Water Watch, has joined with the Organic Consumers Association, Slow Food USA and Family Farm Defenders to ask Congress to support Jones’ amendment to end certain new catch shares programs. We are urging Congress to step in and stop the federal government under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) reckless implementation of catch share programs.