Yesterday I attended a Senate subcommittee hearing on labor law where National Labor Relations Board Member Wilma Liebman gave a damning assessment of the state of labor law in this country.

Liebman testified that the law is not responsive to changes in the global economy and workplace, and that the Board is not acting vigorously to protect workers from employers “intent on killing an organizing drive.”  As evidence of a loss of confidence in the NLRB election process among workers and their unions, she cited the dramatic decline in representation petitions (a 41 percent drop between 1997 and 2006). 

Labor Board Chairman Peter Schaumber struck a far sunnier tone on the state of the NLRB, citing the fact that in fiscal year 2007, 93 percent of all elections were conducted within 56 days (only eight weeks of anti-union captive audience meetings before you get to vote!). 

His optimism further amazed me when he responded to Senator Tom Harkin’s question as to why the Board had not required employers post a notice in the workplace outlining employees’ rights to organize, the same way employers are required to do for other employment laws.

Schaumber testified that some of the Board members felt they didn’t have the authority to require notice-posting—even though they just required employers to post a notice when they granted recognition by majority sign-up. But that that was A-OK since:

We’ve developed a marvelous website—we’ve gotten many accolades for it—and employees who get on our website can easily see what their rights are. 

Yes, I’m sure there are millions of workers out there Googling “national labor relations act” when they get fired for speaking up on the job.

Also testifying at the hearing was Professor Gordon Lafer of the University of Oregon, who noted that “Labor law is the only area of American employment law in which it is statutorily impossible to impose fines, prison, or any other punitive damage.” 

Former Board Member John Raudabaugh testified as well, rightfully demanding that the NLRB improve its data collection on the amount of illegal activity that occurs during elections.