Last month, Randy Johnson, vice president of the nation's most powerful lobbying organization, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, stated that his organization would engage in "guerrilla warfare" against the NLRB. While a startling admission, Johnson's comments provide an accurate description of the behavior of big business and Republican lawmakers toward the NLRB during the Obama administration.
The right wing is apoplectic because the NLRB dared issue a new rule intended to modernize the union certification process and eliminate the worst cases of pre-election delay. The modest changes under the rule would not radically alter the balance of power in NLRB elections. But big business is determined that it will not stand. Johnson stated: "It really amounts to guerilla warfare where you've got a variety of weapons at your disposal." Thus, the chamber will employ an array of obstructionist tactics to sabotage the election rule. Johnson outlined "various devices to rein them in ... litigation, oversight hearings and appropriations riders." True to his words, big business filed two legal challenges to the election rule, which is due to take effect on April 14, in early January. The chamber has asked the courts to grant summary judgment blocking the implementation of the election rule.
In addition to their legal strategy, the chamber and other anti-union groups expect the GOP to ramp up harassment of the NLRB now that it controls both chambers of Congress. According to Johnson: "One [weapon] is oversight hearings. ... If you have intense oversight hearings and investigations it puts a damper on the desire of these people downtown to go forward on some of these issues."
The GOP has not disappointed its anti-union friends among the 0.01 percent. On Monday, Republicans in the House and Senate filed a challenge to the rule under the rarely used 1996 Congressional Review Act. Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee, stated that the GOP would be "pushing back" aggressively against the election rule because controlling both chambers "gives us more oversight capability." A Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee hearing on Wednesday, titled "Ambushed," even adopted the preposterous over-the-top rhetoric of anti-union organizations.
The Senate hearing provided a stark illustration of how the GOP and anti-union organizations are now effectively joined at the hip. Almost laughably, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) accused the NLRB of "ensuring that the odds are stacked against" big business and in favor of employees who are trying to form a union. Parroting another right-wing talking point, HELP Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) called the election rule "a solution in search of a problem." But the election rule addresses a very real problem: unscrupulous employers use deliberate delaying tactics to undermine employee free choice on unionization. Consider what one of the country's largest anti-union law firms tells its corporate clients: Delay union elections whenever possible because "time is on your side." A pre-election hearing of "some length" will extend the duration of anti-union campaigns, thus allowing employers to "erode support for the union."
Adopting similarly far-fetched rhetoric, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) claimed the election rule "drastically tilts the playing field in favor of unions" — it doesn't — and "chills employer-employee communications" — also untrue. According to Scott, the NLRB's efforts to streamline and modernize the union certification process "absolutely feel like an ambush." Alexander claimed that "making even the slightest mistake can require an employer to automatically bargain with employees." In reality, the NLRB issues bargaining orders requiring an employer to bargain with employees only when a company has engaged in legal violations so severe, when the evidence of employer misconduct is so great, that a fair election cannot be held, and even then, the union must provide evidence of prior majority support. Moreover, the NLRB seldom issues such bargaining orders.
In the Alice in Wonderland reality of GOP lawmakers, the NLRB election rule will give pro-union employees an unfair advantage over anti-union corporations such as Wal-Mart and McDonald's. In reality, powerful corporations will continue to dominate the union certification process, even under the new rule: they will still enjoy exclusive access to employees at the workplace; they will still force employees to attend group and one-on-one anti-union meetings; they will still communicate their anti-union message from the moment employees are first hired; they will still hire expensive union avoidance consultants and law firms that excel at operating in the grey areas of the law; unscrupulous employers will continue to intimidate and terminate pro-union workers but will face no meaningful sanction; and they will still rely on their GOP lackeys to parrot their far-fetched arguments against commonsense reform.
Republicans' obsession with waging war on the NLRB caused one Los Angeles Times columnist to ask in utter disbelief, "With all the nation's problems, GOP leaders pick this labor fight?" But the GOP assault on the NLRB makes perfect sense: Few things are more important to the party of the super-rich than destroying workers' right to choose a union. Big business exercises a virtual stranglehold over the existing system of union certification and it is determined to keep it that way.
For members of the NLRB, who have now endured six years of relentless attacks from GOP and big business, it must feel a lot like Groundhog Day.
Logan is professor and director of labor and employment studies at San Francisco State University.
Under the legislation, businesses would be obligated to provide health care only to employees who work 40 hours a week or more, rather than 30. Republicans and some Democrats have backed the bill, saying the current 30-hour standard offers an incentive to cut workers' hours to get around Obamacare's requirement that full-time employees receive insurance.
And a Congressional Budget Office report released earlier this month found that if the standard were shifted from 30 hours a week to 40, many more workers would be at risk of having their hours cut. This is because a much larger portion of the workforce -- about half -- works around 40 hours per week. By contrast, fewer than one in 10 employees work around 30 hours per week.
According to the CBO, the proposed legislation would increase the incentive to cut workers' hours from 40 a week to just below. As a result, up to 1 million workers could lose their employer-backed insurance -- and many of those people would need to shift to tax-subsidized Obamacare. All told, the move would add $53.8 billion to the deficit, CBO said.
Warren said that the bill effectively shifts the burden away from companies and onto taxpayers.
"This bill is corporate welfare," Warren said at a hearing held by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions. "Big corporations would get to cut health benefits for millions of workers, and push people out of their employer insurance plans. Some of those people will lose their health insurance all together. Others would be pushed onto federal programs, expanding the reach of Obamacare, and taxpayers would get stuck with the tab."
Congressional Republicans are invoking a little-used oversight tool to try to overturn a National Labor Relations Board rule aimed at speeding union-organizing elections.
To block the NLRB rule, which was completed in December and scheduled to take effect on April 14, both chambers must approve the resolution and President Barack Obama must sign it—something he’s unlikely to do since the rule was approved by a board he appointed.
Still, the resolution reflects the GOP’s continuing frustration with the NLRB under the Obama administration. The board in recent months has been active issuing decisions it says are needed to address the evolution of the workplace and balance the rights of employers and employees, such as its December ruling that employees with access to their employer’s email system have the right to use it for union organizing and other communications about wages and working conditions – during “nonworking time.”
NLRB Chairman Mark Pearce defended the rule in a statement Monday, saying the board “remains committed” to its work and to “fully carrying out the law” the agency is in charge of enforcing.
“As Congress considers this resolution, this agency will continue productive conversations about the rule ensuring that our processes help fulfill the promise of the National Labor Relations Act,” said Mr. Pearce. “However, it is undeniable that modernizing and streamlining” the rule is “far overdue” and “businesses and workers deserve a process that is effective, fair, and free of unnecessary delays, which is exactly what this rule strives to accomplish,” he said.
Congressional Democrats criticized the (Republican backed) resolution. Sen. Patty Murrayof Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate labor committee, said in a statement that the rule would make elections fairer by helping workers get a seat at the bargaining table with employers.
“Republicans are making it clear that they are more interested in putting the profits of the biggest corporations ahead of the rights and opportunities of middle-classworkers,” Ms. Murray said.
It is a great opportunity to meet and interact with students from all over the world. You may not have the time or opportunity to travel around the world, but this work brings the world to you!
Cons
They don't want teachers, they want robots like Stepford Wives. There is no respect for competence, creativity or dedication in teachers. Pay is poor. There is no guarantee of hours and your schedule changes every 4 weeks. You have little or no advance knowledge what you will teach. I have walked in at 8 in the morning and been given my schedule of classes beginning at 8:30. There is no support from administration on my local level and the national management team seems to only communicate to criticize. The books are bad and the technology is sad.
Advice to Management
Get some management training. Communicate good news once in a while. Don't create an environment where staff feel a need to compete rather than collaborate.
I have been working at EF Education First North America full-time
Cons
Curriculum is repetitive and non-academic, management, false promises of 'higher pay and insurance'. Some students have to travel over an hour by bus and train. Some students live in homestays of 15+. Majority of students are younger than 19 and may think they are on vacation.
Advice to Management
Hire a manager that knows how to manage and a director who actually learns the teachers names and also observes teachers.
