Proposed NLRB Rule Draws Criticism From Construction Industry
Amid the extended media coverage on a missing Malaysian
airliner and contested Affordable Care Act enrollment figures, a deadline pertinent
to the construction industry escaped closer scrutiny by the press—the April 7
filing date for comments regarding proposed changes to the unionizing election
process by the National Labor Relations Board. For most sources reporting
NLRB’s action, the proposed rule-making has been labeled as nothing less than controversial.
Published in the February 6 Federal Register following a 3-2 split decision along political
lines, NLRB stated that it is “again proposing the same changes” that were
included in a 2011 proposal. According to the Construction Industry Round Table,
the rule was invalidated in 2012 on procedural grounds when the US District
Court for the District of Columbia held that the amendments were not properly
adopted by the board because of a lack of a quorum. CIRT notes, however, that
the court did not address the substance of the rule-making, so NLRB has returned
with essentially the same proposal but more comprehensive. It is touted by
labor as furthering the goals of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by
“modernizing processes, enhancing transparency, and eliminating unnecessary
litigation and delay.”
“These proposals are intended to improve the process for all
parties, in all cases, whether nonunion employees are seeking a union to
represent them or unionized employees are seeking to decertify a union,” says
NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce in a statement to TheHill.com. Labor
unions advocate that the NLRB rule is necessary to limit delays and obstacles
for workers wanting to organize, with AFL-CIO Chairman Richard Trumka claiming
that current election rules allow employers to “manipulate and drag out the
process through costly and unnecessary litigation.”
Stating her perspective in The Hill, Sarita Gupta, executive
director of Jobs With Justice, a labor rights advocacy group, says the current
union election system is a “senseless” system that discourages workers from
organizing. “Currently, workers who petition for a union election encounter
delays of months and even years before an election is held, and some never get
a vote at all,” she points out. “This rule would cut back on senseless
procedural delays, closing the loopholes employers have exploited for decades.”
At the heart of the controversy are the proposal’s critics,
who firmly denounce the rule-making as undercutting the very purpose of the NLRA—referring to the amendments as promoting ambush
or quickie elections—all in the name of efficiency and rapid decision-making. Under the
new proposal, the period of a standard union election process would be
reduced from 42 days to a range of 10 to 21 days. In practice, according to
reported election periods, the median duration has been 38 days.
“This proposal is a solution in search of a problem,” says
Geoff Burr, vice president of government affairs for the Associated Builders
and Contractors. “Unions already are winning 64% of elections, and more than
94% of those elections occur within 56 days—exceeding NLRB’s own goals related to election timeframes.” With more
than 70,000 public comments already issued against the proposal, Burr says it
is “disappointing that NLRB has doubled down on this failed ambush elections
rule,” emphasizing that “it’s absolutely bad policy.”
ABC and numerous other construction and business groups have rebuked NLRB for reviving
the rules, promising they would respond with a forceful legal challenge. “That’s
why we sued them on this the first time,” Burr explains. “We do plan to
challenge this in the courts again, and we do plan to pursue a legislative
solution.” ABC, the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC), the
American Council of Engineering Companies, the National Association of Home
Builders, and the US Chamber of Commerce are just some of the major players
in a larger advocacy organization—the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace—which successfully challenged the original NLRB rule in court.
Other provisions in NLRB’s proposed rule are drawing equal
skepticism, too. For instance, in addition to eliminating the
required 25-day waiting period prior to holding an election, employers would
be required to file a formal position statement regarding a unionizing petition
within seven days or forfeit the right to pursue any issues. Moreover, an employer’s automatic right to a post-election NLRB review of
contested issues would be eliminated. The proposed rule would also require
targeted nonunion employers to turn over personal employee information such as
home addresses, e-mail addresses, home phone numbers, and cell phone numbers to
the union to facilitate contact. Finally, workers at a given site would be
allowed to cast ballots even if their eligibility is contested, deferring any
legal action until after the election.
Commenting on the earlier 2011 proposed rule, AGC contended
that the amendments would be particularly difficult to apply in the
construction industry due to a number of unique aspects of the industry,
including the complexity of bargaining unit and voter eligibility
determination, and the decentralized nature of the workplace. Regarding the mandatory
disclosure of personal employee data, AGC notes that recent cases have
illustrated how construction unions might misuse such information. The
organization is also concerned that the proposed rule might lead to unintended
consequences, including increased litigation and protracted legislative fights
at both the federal and state levels.
The National Legal and
Policy Center, in its published online article “NLRB Revives ‘Ambush
Election’ Rule to Thwart Opposition to Union Campaigns,” states, “In effect,
where a union would have months and even years to build support at a given work
site before approaching the NLRB to supervise an election, an employer would
have at most a few weeks to offer any responses. This rule change especially
would hurt small businesses, which typically do not employ a labor issues
counsel. The result would not be a level playing field. Election campaigns would be
rigged in favor of unions.”
CIRT further cites Brian Hayes, a former NLRB member, who claims
that “. . . by administrative fiat in lieu of congressional action, the Board [NLRB]
will impose organized labor’s much sought-after ‘quickie election’ option, a
procedure under which elections will be held in 10 to 21 days from the filing
of the petition. Make no mistake, the principal purpose for this radical
manipulation of our election process is to minimize, or rather, to effectively
eviscerate an employer’s legitimate opportunity to express its views about
Save the Date!
Join professional engineers from around the country for networking, continuing education, and a fantastic Fourth of July celebration in the nation's capital!
Conveniently located in the heart of Washington, DC, with easy access to museums, the National Mall, and all Independence Day festivities, the NSPE 2014 Annual Meeting is one you and your family won't want to miss.
Watch www.nspe.org for future details.
[ return to top ]
NSPE Legislative Affairs News
NSPE Expresses Serious Concerns With the FUELS Act
On March 19, the National Society of Professional Engineers urged Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) to reconsider his bill S. 496, the Farmers Undertake Environmental Land Stewardship (FUELS) Act. The FUELS Act would substantially weaken the current EPA Spill, Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule, placing the public and the farmers it seeks to protect at increased risk of devastating oil spills. NSPE understands that some members of the agricultural community have concerns with the current SPCC rule. NSPE would like to underscore two important points, though: first, the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare must be of paramount importance; and second, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that most farms would be exempt from the rule. Read the press release.
NSPE Members Visit with Members of Congress to Advocate for the Professional Engineering Community
On March 6, NSPE members and staff participated in the 2014 Society of Women Engineers Capitol Hill Day to discuss issues of importance to professional engineers, including STEM education, investment in national infrastructure, and qualifications-based selection. NSPE Treasurer Julia Harrod, P.E., F.NSPE, and NSPE Legislative and Government Affairs Committee STEM Task Force Chair Karen Moran, P.E., F.NSPE, lead the delegation and met with several champions of engineering. Visits with Representatives Donna Edwards (D-MD), Michael McCaul (R-TX), Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), Paul Tonko (D-NY), and NSPE's very own PE in Congress, David McKinley, P.E. (R-WV), were extremely productive. There is growing interest and commitment to NSPE's issues and these visits served to bring these matters to the forefront.
For all the latest NSPE legislative activities visit the NSPE website. [ return to top ]
NSPE & ACEC Seeking Nominations for QBS Award
Every year, ACEC and NSPE partner to administer the QBS Awards. The purpose of the QBS Awards is to recognize public and private entities that make exemplary use of the qualifications-based selection process at the federal, state, and local levels. In turn, QBS Award winners serve as examples of how well the QBS process works, and they help ACEC and NSPE promote the practice of QBS in jurisdictions that do not use, or underuse, QBS to procure engineering services.
[ return to top ]
ACEC and NSPE are now seeking nominations for the 2014 QBS Awards, honoring entities that retain design professionals using qualifications-based selection. The deadline for nominations is Friday, June 6, 2014.
Please visit the NSPE website
for a nomination form.
Engineering a Stronger Profession
Since July 2012, NSPE and its members have been engaged in an open process aimed at building a Society dedicated to organizational innovation and development. The foundation of that effort has been the association management book Race for Relevance, which outlines the challenges faced by today’s associations and provides a plan for change.
Informed by data collected through extensive surveying and the active engagement of about 100 members from 41 states involved in seven task forces, the NSPE Board of Directors has committed itself to reinvigorating an organization that has been serving professional engineers for 80 years. By following the changes outlined in Race for Relevance, NSPE will be renewing its unique and vital role in promoting and protecting the value of the licensed professional engineer.
The NSPE Board is committed to integrating the values, strategies, objectives, and action plan outlined in its new Statement of Strategic Direction (approved January 29, 2014) into the very fabric of NSPE’s ongoing governance and operations.
Staying Strategic (March 2014 PE)
By Executive Director Mark Golden
Change or Be Changed (April 2014 PE)
By President Robert Green, P.E., F.NSPE
Background on NSPE’s Race for Relevance initiative. [ return to top ]
2013–14 PEC Executive Board
For a complete list of PEC Executive Board Officers, please visit the PEC website.
[ return to top ]
If you would like to sponsor the next edition of PEC Reporter, contact the Professional Engineers in Construction for more information.
PEC would like to thank the following 2014 Sustaining Sponsors:
Frank Gurney, Inc.
Allied Contractors, Inc.
Blitman Building Corporation
Fagen Engineering, LLC
Glynn Geotechnical Engineering
Richard W. Rauseo P.E. Consulting Engineers
Dalton Olmsted & Fuglevand, Inc.
John Puder, LLC
Brown Construction Services
Zachry Construction, Corp .
Calvi Electric Company
Suberroc Systems SUBSYST
Paul J Gallo Contracting, Inc.
Stansell Electric Company, Inc.
Century Electric, Inc.
Rohde Soyka & Andrews Consulting Engineers PC
GECO Engineering, Corp.
KSI Professional Engineers
ADCOMM Engineering Company
Frederick Derr & Company, Inc.
JEI Engineering, Inc.
McAbee Construction, Inc.
Free Contracting, Inc.
Alber & Rice, Inc.
Henderson Electric Company
Drury South, Inc.
Stephen Estrin & Co., Inc.
George Harms Construction, Co.
ABC Paving Co.
The Rubicon Group
Doka USA, Ltd.
Rice Lake Construction Group
ABCO Construction Services
Riverso Assoc, Inc.
Broaddus & Associates
Trade Construction Company, LLC.
Lundy Construction Co., Inc.
Big M Constructors, Inc.
White Cloud Engineering and Construction Co.
J. Fletcher Creamer & Son, Inc.
Statewide Aquastore, Inc.
Tri State Engineering, Inc.
Pembroke Construction Co., Inc.
To learn how to become a PEC Sustaining Sponsor or to contact the above listed companies, please visit the PEC "Find a Firm" Web site.