NLRB Threatens to Sue States Over Curb on Unions

The National Labor Relations Board has threatened to sue four states, charging that newly-approved state constitutional amendments governing how employees choose union representation are illegal.

In Jan. 13 letters, the NLRB advised the attorneys general of Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah that their states' voter-approved amendments conflict with federal labor law and are preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

According to the NLRB, under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, private-sector employees have two ways to choose a union: “They may vote in a secret-ballot election conducted by the NLRB, or they may persuade an employer to voluntarily recognize a union after showing majority support by signed authorization cards or other means.”

The amendments at issue all prohibit the second method, and “therefore interfere with the exercise of a well-established federally-protected right.”

NLRB acting general counsel Lafe Solomon, assistant general counsel Eric Moskowitz, deputy assistant general counsel Abby Propis Simms and attorney Mark Eskenazi wrote that they have been “authorized to bring a civil action in federal court” challenging the amendments, which they say impair "important federal rights of employees, employers, and unions.”

If the states "agree with our legal position," the NLRB invited the AGs to sign off on a “judicially sanctioned stipulation concerning the unconstitutionality of the Amendment, so as to conserve state and federal resources.”

But the clock is ticking. The NLRB said if the states don’t respond within two weeks, the board will initiate the suits.

Comments

[Kevin Dayton]

Mr. Ratlov proposes mandatory labor history in government-run schools, but wouldn't this be the inappropriate injection of an overt political agenda into the school curriculum? The California Federation of Teachers and the University of California Institute for Labor and Employment tried to implement this idea, with little success, in the late 1990s and early 2000s. See my 2003 article in the journal Government Union Review entitled "Labor History in Public Schools: Unions Get ‘Em While They’re Young" at this link:

http://www.psrf.org/gur/gur21.1dayton.jsp

[R.J. Richards]

Since there is a federally enforced right to have a union, and since this right is personal to each worker, perhaps the assent of one worker should suffice to institute a union.

[Anthony Ratkov]

I think that all four states involved in this debacle should be required to establish mandatory labor education classes in all their public schools. Labor education classes would teach high school students that they have the right to join unions. Labor education would also teach students the history of the labor movement. Actually,classroom instruction in labor issues should be mandatory in all 50 states,not just in the four worst states.

[Anthony Ratkov]

Unions should be pushing for a federal law that requires all the schools in the U.S.A. to teach students that they have the right to join labor unions after they graduate. Most students in the U.S.A.graduate from high school without realizing that they have the right to join a union. This country needs a federal law that requires every school district in the U.S.A. to teach students the basics of labor law,and also to teach the history of the labor movement. The problem is the lack of education. Labor education should be mandatory for all high school students in the USA.

[yarrrrr]

" state legislatures to attack the American historical legacy that is the foundation of our common prosperity."

Like private ballots?(actually IIRC, there weren't real private ballots till like the late 1800s, but still)

[DCEsq]

This is fantastic. If only there were more vigorous enforcement like this by the federal government in this current irrational political climate that encourages (mostly Republican) state legislatures to attack the American historical legacy that is the foundation of our common prosperity.