Republican-controlled Congress to vote to repeal NLRB rule - Yahoo News

 

Congressional Republicans launched a drive Monday to repeal a recent National Labor Relations Board rule updating procedures for union representation elections, setting up a likely veto showdown with President Barack Obama.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said the GOP will employ a little-used law that permits the Senate to reject some federal agency regulations by majority vote and denies opponents the ability to thwart action through a filibuster.

Alexander said that by shortening the time between a union's request for representation and the actual balloting, the NLRB had cleared the way for a new type of "ambush election" to take place that will disadvantage businesses and workers alike.

In remarks on the Senate floor, he said that under previous rules, 95 percent of union elections take place in 56 days or less from the filing of a petition. He said that under the new proposal, that would be reduced to as few as 11 days, which he said could be before an employer understands what's happening.

In a written statement, NLRB chairman Mark G. Pearce countered that "both businesses and workers deserve a process that is effective, fair, and free of unnecessary delays, which is exactly what this rule strives to accomplish."

Mirroring divisions in Congress, NLRB rule-making is often politically charged, with Republicans taking the side of business while Democrats are aligned with unions. In the case of the rule approved in December, the labor board split 3-2 along party lines.

The rule, which has been cheered by organized labor, eliminates a previous 25-day waiting period and seeks to reduce litigation that can be used to stall elections. It also requires employers to furnish union organizers with email addresses and phone numbers of workers.

The NLRB rule is scheduled to take effect in April.

Alexander's announcement was fresh evidence of the Republicans' determination to use the power won in last fall's elections, when they captured a Senate majority and strengthened their grip on the House. Obama has already threatened to veto 11 bills.

Alexander said the vote to overturn the union election rule would take place under the Congressional Review Act, which limits debate and bars any changes in the repeal proposal. Obama may veto the measure, however, and it takes the customary two-thirds vote in each house of Congress to override him.

The law being used to target the labor rule has been used successfully only once. That was in 2001, when President George W. Bush signed legislation passed by a Republican-controlled Congress, canceling an ergonomics rule that had been issued by the Labor Department near the end of the Clinton administration.

Republican-controlled Congress to vote to repeal NLRB rule - Yahoo News

Lawsuits claim Missouri towns jail poor people for profit - Yahoo News

 

By Carey Gillam

(Reuters) - Ferguson, Missouri and a second St. Louis suburb are being accused in separate lawsuits of operating a "debtors' prison scheme," illegally jailing poor people who are unable to pay traffic tickets or fines tied to other minor offenses.

The lawsuits, filed on Sunday in U.S. District Court in St. Louis by 20 black residents, allege that officials in Ferguson and neighboring Jennings have routinely been abusing and exploiting impoverished individuals to boost city revenues. The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status for the cases.

The plaintiffs claim the money they are told they owe is often arbitrarily modified, and the individuals are frequently kept locked in a cycle of jail time and indebtedness to the municipal courts as late fees and surcharges are added to initial fines.

Plaintiffs also claim they were crowded into small jail cells without regular showers, adequate medical care or basic sanitation, and were regularly subjected to verbal abuse and taunting by jailers.

International attention has focused on Ferguson since last year when a white police officer shot dead Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old black man, and was later cleared of any wrongdoing by a grand jury.

The lawsuits accuse both cities of issuing and enforcing invalid arrest warrants and jailing people in "dangerous and inhumane conditions" for long periods when they cannot pay fines.

The allegations are the latest complaints of unfair treatment of poor people and minorities in the St. Louis area by mostly white police forces and government leaders. Both Jennings and Ferguson have largely black populations.

Read the entire article by clicking on the following:  Lawsuits claim Missouri towns jail poor people for profit - Yahoo News

Illinois governor makes union dues voluntary for some state workers - Yahoo News

 

By Mary Wisniewski

CHICAGO (Reuters) - In a strike against public employee unions, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner on Monday signed an order eliminating union dues for some state employees who don't want to pay to support union activities.

Rauner, a Republican and political neophyte who came into office in January, has been vocal about his problems with public labor unions and their political power. The order, which would eliminate so-called "fair share dues," affects 6,500 state workers who have opted out of unions but still have to pay dues.

“Forced union dues are a critical cog in the corrupt bargain that is crushing taxpayers," Rauner said in a statement. "Government union bargaining and government union political activity are inexorably linked."

The action is likely to be challenged in court. The Rauner administration said dues would be placed in escrow during the legal process.

Rauner has argued that reforms are necessary to heal the state's financial problems. He has also proposed "empowerment zones" - areas where voters could decide if workers must join unions and pay dues.

Illinois has a chronic structural budget deficit, and the lowest credit ratings and the worst-funded pension system among the 50 states.

Rauner said he based his action on a review of the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year in Harris v. Quinn, which found that Illinois law violated the First Amendment by forcing home healthcare aides to involuntarily pay union fees.

Roberta Lynch, executive director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 31, the largest public labor union for state workers, called the move "a blatantly illegal abuse of power."

"Our union and all organized labor will stand together with those who believe in democracy to overturn Bruce Rauner’s illegal action and restore the integrity of the rule of law," Lynch said in a statement.

"It's a frontal assault on unions," said Harley Shaiken, a labor expert and professor at University of California-Berkeley. "He is interpreting the Harris-Quinn opinion, which was narrowly constructed, into a broad mandate."

Steve Brown, spokesman for Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, a Democrat, said Madigan has "urged Rauner to focus on near-term budget concerns."

State Senate President John J. Cullerton, also a Democrat, said his legal staff is reviewing Rauner's order.

Rauner's anti-union rhetoric has been compared with that of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who pushed for legislation that made union fees voluntary for state workers, among other changes.

Illinois governor makes union dues voluntary for some state workers - Yahoo News

Here some criticism of the Harris Vs.Quinn case:

The Flaws of Harris v. Quinn and a Path Forward for Public Employee Unions

Guest Post

by Catherine Fisk, Chancellor’s Professor of Law, University of California Irvine School of Law

As I have argued elsewhere, in striking down an Illinois law authorizing the state to require unionized home care workers to pay their fair share of the cost of union representation, the Supreme Court in Harris v. Quinn disregarded its longstanding rule that it does not decide questions of state law and failed to reconcile the result with the First Amendment rights of government workers or the Court’s other cases on when compulsory fees constitute compelled speech.

First, under Illinois law, government-paid and government-regulated home-care health workers are state employees. Justice Alito’s majority opinion in Harris disregarded state law when it invented a vague new category of non-“full-fledged” government employees who have greater First Amendment rights than other workers to refuse to pay the costs of union representation.

Second, if under Garcetti v. Ceballos, and United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, government employees have no First Amendment rights to speak on the job on matters of public concern or to engage in political activity on their own time, why do some government employees have a First Amendment right to refuse to pay for services that their union is legally required to provide them?

Third, the Court failed to explain why fair share fees differ from compulsory payment of lawyers’ bar dues, which the Court approved in Keller v. California State Bar.  To quote Keller, substituting only “home care workers” for “legal profession,” Illinois has an “interest in regulating [home health-care workers] and improving the quality of [home health-care] services.”

Yet there is a way forward. As I argue with Ben Sachs, where unions are unable to require objecting workers to pay fees – whether it’s in right-to-work states or in work situations that fall under Harris v. Quinn – we should get rid of the rule of exclusive representation. Non-fee payers wouldn’t be subject to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, they wouldn’t have to interact with their employer through a collective agent, and they wouldn’t be required to pay anything to a union they didn’t vote for. Unions, for their part, would be required to represent only those workers who actually want representation.  Another possibility is that governments wishing to bargain with a single representative on behalf of their workers could agree to pay the cost of the representational services on behalf of all workers. No worker would then be compelled to pay anything to a union and the dissenting workers’ First Amendment rights would not be violated.

Netanyahu considering changes to Congress speech after criticism - Yahoo News

 

Netanyahu is due to address a joint session of Congress about Iran's nuclear programme on March 3, just two weeks before Israeli elections, following an invitation from John Boehner, the Republican speaker of the house.

Boehner's invitation has caused consternation in both Israel and the United States, largely because it is seen as Netanyahu, a hawk on Iran, working with the Republicans to thumb their noses at President Barack Obama's policy on Iran.

It is also seen as putting Netanyahu's political links to the Republicans ahead of Israel's nation-to-nation ties with the United States, its strongest and most important ally, while serving as a pre-election campaign booster.

As a result, Israeli officials are considering whether Netanyahu should speak to a closed-door session of Congress, rather than in a prime-time TV address, so as to drain some of the intensity from the event, a source said.

Another option is for the prime minister to make his speech at the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington the same week, rather than in Congress.

"The issue has been under discussion for a week," said a source close to the prime minister's office. "(Netanyahu) is discussing it with Likud people. Some say he should give up on the speech, others that he should go through with it."

Read the entire story by clicking on the following:  Netanyahu considering changes to Congress speech after criticism - Yahoo News