This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/24/us-labor-department-new-union-busting-rule

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
US businesses attack new labor rule aimed at curbing union-busting tactics US businesses attack new labor rule aimed at curbing union-busting tactics
(about 5 hours later)
The US Department of Labor has announced the final version of a new rule that would require companies to disclose any arrangements they have with outside consultants that seek to persuade workers not to unionize or back their union’s bargaining stance.The US Department of Labor has announced the final version of a new rule that would require companies to disclose any arrangements they have with outside consultants that seek to persuade workers not to unionize or back their union’s bargaining stance.
Business groups attacked the new regulation while the labor department said it was merely seeking to close a long-time loophole in the regulations for a 1959 law that sought to require more disclosure by unions and employers. Business groups attacked the new regulation while the Labor Department said it was merely seeking to close a longtime loophole in the regulations for a 1959 law that sought to require more disclosure by unions and employers.
With the number of union avoidance consultants exploding since the 1970s, labor unions have long urged the labor department to issue a tougher “persuader rule” because the 1959 law – the Landrum-Griffin Act – requires disclosure by any outside consultant that seeks “directly or indirectly to persuade employees” not to form a union.With the number of union avoidance consultants exploding since the 1970s, labor unions have long urged the labor department to issue a tougher “persuader rule” because the 1959 law – the Landrum-Griffin Act – requires disclosure by any outside consultant that seeks “directly or indirectly to persuade employees” not to form a union.
“Workers should know who is behind an anti-union message. It’s a matter of basic fairness,” said labor secretary Thomas Perez. “This new rule will allow workers to know whether the messages they’re hearing are coming directly from their employer or from a paid, third-party consultant.” “Workers should know who is behind an anti-union message. It’s a matter of basic fairness,” said Labor secretary Thomas Perez. “This new rule will allow workers to know whether the messages they’re hearing are coming directly from their employer or from a paid, third-party consultant.”
The labor department said a regulation dating since 1959 had created a loophole by stating that persuaders’ activities had to be disclosed and reported only if a consultant spoke directly with employees, but not if the consultant communicated indirectly with employees – for instance, by writing anti-union pamphlets or speeches that were given by managers. The Labor Department said a regulation dating since 1959 had created a loophole by stating that persuaders’ activities had to be disclosed and reported only if a consultant spoke directly with employees, but not if the consultant communicated indirectly with employees – for instance, by writing anti-union pamphlets or speeches that were given by managers.
According to the department, the new rule closes the loophole by requiring reporting on “actions, conduct or communications that are undertaken with an object, explicitly or implicitly, directly or indirectly, to affect an employee’s decisions regarding his or her representation or collective bargaining rights.” According to the department, the new rule closes the loophole by requiring reporting on “actions, conduct or communications that are undertaken with an object, explicitly or implicitly, directly or indirectly, to affect an employee’s decisions regarding his or her representation or collective bargaining rights”.
Related: The door-to-door union killers: rightwing foundation takes labor fight to the streetsRelated: The door-to-door union killers: rightwing foundation takes labor fight to the streets
Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, the main US labor federation, applauded the regulation. “This long-awaited rule will increase transparency about employers’ activities when they hire outside third parties to do their union busting,” he said. “Working men and women deserve to know who their employer is hiring and exactly how much they are spending to discourage workers from forming a union.”Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, the main US labor federation, applauded the regulation. “This long-awaited rule will increase transparency about employers’ activities when they hire outside third parties to do their union busting,” he said. “Working men and women deserve to know who their employer is hiring and exactly how much they are spending to discourage workers from forming a union.”
An association of small businesses called the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace criticized the new rule, saying it was disappointed that the labor department had ignored “the thousands of comments submitted by small business”. An association of small businesses called the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace criticized the new rule, saying it was disappointed that the Labor Department had ignored “the thousands of comments submitted by small business”.
“This rule is unfair to employers,” the coalition said, adding that the regulation will “make it harder for them to lawfully communicate with employees about unions and other workforce issues. At the same time, the rule effectively limits the information employees receive on important workplace issues, including whether or not to join a union.”“This rule is unfair to employers,” the coalition said, adding that the regulation will “make it harder for them to lawfully communicate with employees about unions and other workforce issues. At the same time, the rule effectively limits the information employees receive on important workplace issues, including whether or not to join a union.”
The Retail Industry Leaders Association also attacked the rule, saying it “is designed to discourage employers from taking the reasonable step of hiring outside counsel to ensure that they are complying with labor laws.” The Retail Industry Leaders Association also attacked the rule, saying it “is designed to discourage employers from taking the reasonable step of hiring outside counsel to ensure that they are complying with labor laws”.
But labor department officials said lawyers will be required to disclose anti-union activities only if they give advice on dissuading workers from unionizing – and not if the advice is purely legal, such as advising employers on what steps might violate the National Labor Relations Act. But Labor Department officials said lawyers will be required to disclose anti-union activities only if they give advice on dissuading workers from unionizing – and not if the advice is purely legal, such as advising employers on what steps might violate the National Labor Relations Act.
In a 2009 study, Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of Labor Education Research at the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, found aggressive anti-union campaigns at many companies. In two-thirds of unionization elections, she found, workers were required to attend one-on-one anti-union meetings with a supervisor at least weekly. Bronfenbrenner also said that employers threatened to shut plants in 57% of unionization elections, to reduce wages and benefits in 47% and to discharge workers in 34%.In a 2009 study, Kate Bronfenbrenner, director of Labor Education Research at the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, found aggressive anti-union campaigns at many companies. In two-thirds of unionization elections, she found, workers were required to attend one-on-one anti-union meetings with a supervisor at least weekly. Bronfenbrenner also said that employers threatened to shut plants in 57% of unionization elections, to reduce wages and benefits in 47% and to discharge workers in 34%.