Rule would make employers disclose more about anti-union work

[Enrique]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304887904576398173413153248.html

The Obama administration Monday said employers should disclose more information about the consultants they hire to respond to union bargaining or organizing campaigns, a move long sought by organized labor and opposed by employers.

(...)

Under the rule, employers would have to disclose arrangements with consultants that issue communications on behalf of an employer designed to "directly or indirectly persuade workers concerning their rights to organize or bargain collectively," whether or not consultants contact employees directly.

The Labor Department proposal effectively sides with unions, who have argued for a decade that the advice exception needs to be narrowed.

"This is a common-sense proposal to close a gaping loophole," an AFL-CIO official said in a statement Monday.

(...)

"This is probably the most significant handout to organized labor that we've seen in this administration," Michael Eastman, executive director of labor law policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said of the new proposal. "What they're trying to do here is radically change employers' behavior through disclosure requirements."

(...)

[LiberalFighter]

1. It was my understanding that anti-union consultants avoided following the law.

[Wilms]

2. Excellent!

Looks as though the administration realized the potential effect of the "snootful" Trumka referred to last week.

THIS is CHANGE I applaud.

http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Richard+Trumka+Obama+Delivers+Remarks+Economy+KI4uRHG4isJl.jpg

[Sherman A1]

3. Perhaps tossing a bone to labor?

Is there an election coming in 2012?

[LiberalFighter]

4. The admin has tossed more than a bone to labor.

Comparing to what happened under 43 it is significant. More could had happened under Obama except for the Blue Dogs that put up walls to pass more worthwhile legislation such as employees right to organize without interference from their employers. Blue Dogs such as Evan Bayh that hem and haw that needed to read the language before deciding if they will support the legislation. My guess is that Bayh decided not to run for re-election because he was getting vibes he was not going to win or that the margin of win would be less and hurt any chances of national office. Many of us here in Indiana were getting fed up with Bayh in labor. And apparently it was eroding even within the local Democratic Party. I just heard that at one county they turned his picture to the wall at their hdqtrs.

There is also just so much that the admin can do on their own. But considering that there are now good people at the DOL and NLRB that is a major improvement. There are some things they can do with policy but they also have to deal with a Republican House that will try everything to cut their budgets.

[Sherman A1]

5. We will see

As this is a proposed rule making and not a rule making as of yet, nothing has happened.

I hold out little hope that the working class will get much out of this Administration or any other.