On May 15, 2006, the Republican majority of the Board ruled that a treatment center for children and adolescents did not retaliate against its employees when it terminated its funding from the United Way after the organization supported employees' bargaining efforts.  The loss of funding meant fewer hours and less pay for several employees. The majority of the Board concluded that the employer merely acted in response to an "intrusion" by a third party, reversing a 2004 decision of an administrative law judge who determined that this tactic was indeed retaliation.

Last year was quite the year for anti-union employers.  The Republican majority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) went out of its way to endorse the unscrupulous tactics of employers at the expense of workers' rights.

A federal appeals court recently joined the growing chorus of critics of the National Labor Relations Board’s Republican majority.  The Seventh Circuit Court issued a harsh assessment of the Board last month when they ruled to overturn its finding that an employer’s partial lockout of pro-union workers was legal.  The decision wasn’t handed down by “liberal activist judges,” as you might have expected.  Rather, a trio of Republican-appointed judges denounced the Bush Board.

Given all the obstacles workers face when forming unions these days, the last thing they should have to worry about is whether they are, in fact, workers under the law.  Yet for the third time since 2004, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled that a category of workers should not be considered employees.  This time around, newspaper delivery carriers didn’t make the cut.  But the NLRB decision didn’t simply end a semantic debate for thousands of men and women who deliver newspapers around the country, it denied them legal protection to form a union to improve their working conditions. 

All workers—whether they are in a union or not—are supposed to be protected under the National Labor Relations Act when they engage in reasonable on-site work stoppages or job actions. Try telling that to the 83 employees who the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled were allowed to be fired after peacefully protesting on their employer’s parking lot.  This recent NLRB decision sends the message that employers and their parking lots are more worthy of protection than the already limited rights of workers.

It is a regular pastime for co-workers to chat during a coffee break, at a union hall, or over a beer about workplace issues, good grilling recipes, and celebrity gossip.  Yet a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) allows employers to ban off-duty fraternizing among co-workers, severely weakening the rights of free association and speech, and violating basic standards of privacy for America's workers.

Just as it's against the law for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, age, or disability in hiring practices, it's illegal to not hire someone because of their union affiliation.  Yet that's exactly what happened to eight electricians in Nebraska.  Although the National Labor Relations Board just ruled in their favor, the case demonstrates that while discrimination is technically illegal, a weak and delay-ridden labor law system renders it an effective strategy for an employer to remain union-free. 

When five workers voted unanimously to form a union through the National Labor Relations Board process, they likely thought it would be a matter of weeks before they could begin bargaining with their employer.  They were mistaken.  Two years and three separate legal determinations later, these workers haven't gotten to the bargaining stage, thanks to an NLRB election process enabling frivolous legal objections filed by the employer.