National Right to Work Foundation President criticizes Labor Board’s decision to selectively publicize workers’ rights
Washington, DC (August 25, 2011) – Today, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) implemented new rules governing the notification of employee rights in the workplace.
Until these changes, employers were required to post notices of workers' rights only if a violation of labor law occurred. However, the new rules require every employer to post incomplete information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they've never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices. Meanwhile, union officials are not required to issue information about workers' rights to refrain from union membership or opt out of union dues.
Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation – a charitable organization that provides free legal assistance to employees nationwide – made the following statement regarding the new rules:
"The NLRB's new rules are just the latest example of the Obama Labor Board’s biased approach to administering labor law.
"Just as the Obama administration promises to lessen the job-destroying weight of federal regulations, Obama's NLRB comes out with a new 'posting rule' to saddle every business – from ‘mom and pop' stores to IBM – with new mandatory posting requirements designed solely to grease the skids for more forced unionism.
"This unprecedented rule change fundamentally changes (and expands) the NLRB from a remedial role to an agency that is involved with every workplace in the country even if no allegations of violations have occurred.
"And as the long list of Big Labor paybacks on behalf of the Obama administration grows, workers are becoming increasingly susceptible to the whims of a biased and ideologically-charged Labor Board and its union boss beneficiaries.
"If the NLRB was really interested in protecting workers, they would inform workers of the dangers of coercive 'card check' drives and publicize their rights, under law, to remove an unwanted union instead of burdening job providers and independent-minded employees with new rules that undermine workplace freedom."