Obama to Reverse Labor Rules
According to the Wall Street Journal, one day after signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, President Obama is set to change three Bush Administration labor policies. Obama may hold off on pushing the Employee Free Choice Act, but it’s clear that he will advance a pro-employee, pro-labor agenda.
First, the President will sign an executive order requiring federal contractors with contracts above $100,000 to post a notice advising employees of their right to join or not join a union. The Bush rule required a notice telling employees only that they had a right not to join a union.
The second executive order will provide that when a federal agency changes contractors that provide services to federal buildings, the new company must offer jobs to nonsupervisory employees who worked for the previous contractor. This was the rule under the Clinton Administration. Bush voided the rule.
Third, Obama will sign an executive order preventing federal contractors from being reimbursed for money they spend to “support or deter their employees’ exercise of their right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining.” The intent of this executive order is to tell companies awarded federal contracts that they can’t engage in union-busting behavior.
It would be an overstatement to call these changes huge, but it sends a message that the Obama Administration will pursue a different path on labor and employment issues as compared to the Bush Administration. That’s not a surprise, but it’s happening early.
Posted
on
Friday, January 30th, 2009 at 11:52 am under
What problem, exactly, do we have where a union is the solution? This is an example of “pork” in another form.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:34 pmAs a lawyer who has always represented management, I’ve never been inclined to think that a union is a solution. However, right now, a lot of unions will tell you that the problem requiring a union is tens of thousands of employees being laid off and that a union would prevent that from happening. Promising and being able to deliver on the promise are, of course, two different things. Many employees who’ve been laid off would say that a union might have helped and couldn’t have possibly made things worse. Whether the Employee Free Choice Act passes or not, I’d say we’ll see serious union organizing over the next several months in light of our economic woes.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:34 pmFunny thing is how big business, CEO’s and managers that are not part of a union, still get thier big payoffs while the company goes under. And the workers that have been always under paid and working the hardest, now getting layed off. If only the workers were paid better maybe they would have the money to spend on products that inturn would help the ecconomy out. Thats why we need labor laws and Unions!!! You just don’t want to share the pork with workers. And Yes “NO MORE PORK” for Business/CEOs/managers.
February 17th, 2009 at 12:34 pmEveryone is talking about global ecconomy, global business, global warming, global recession. But no one is talking about having a global wages set so everyone gets paid fairly. Oh, business don’t want that. They rather have global free trade so they can move to a poorer country and pay even below what is considered low wages, just to have their cheap workers. This is an example of “Slavery” in another form.
February 17th, 2009 at 1:00 pmSteven,
Sorry to get you so worked up, but I really appreciate your weighing in.
If you’ve read my blog very much, then I think you’ll agree that there’s not another employment law blog that has been more critical of excessive executive compensation. I’ve also had a number of posts about the inadvisability of the kinds of layoffs we’ve been seeing. I hope you’ll check them out.
I agree that workers should be paid fairly. I don’t agree that unions guarantee fair wages. I do think that, unless big business gets executive comp under control and pays more attention to the needs of the average worker, unions will have plenty of opportunities to prove me wrong.
Thanks again for your comments.
John
February 17th, 2009 at 6:44 pmSteven you wrote this, “If only the workers were paid better maybe they would have the money to spend on products that inturn would help the ecconomy out”. Are you not aware of how much boilermakers, automakers, pipefitters, laborers unions employees make? My friend an Illinoise boilermaker makes $71 an hour, he takes home $31 an hour. Thats more than most people i know make, and your telling me that if they were paid better they would spend more.
I think that you need to set aside your beliefs for a second and think from the other side. GM is going out of business because they pay their employees to much. Sorry but your a mechanic people used to be mechanics becuase they were uneducated and could not find a better job. Now days mechanics are paid great money to do work that a monkey could do. Me having a Bachelors degree would take that money anyday to be a mechanic.
Unions promote nepatism/favortism which means your not getting a job based on your skills and previous job history or schooling, you get a job because you know someone. Unions used to have a place in America but that day is over.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:06 pm