• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • NLRB's 'Snap Elections' Rule Would Dramatically Increase Unionization

    A new National Labor Relations Board regulation that expedites elections for union representation will likely lead to dramatically higher rates of unionization, a new study has found.

    A majority of workplace union elections are decided by five or fewer votes, according to a Bloomberg Government analysis. What’s more, “cutting the time between a request for an election and the ballot increases the chances union supporters will prevail,” according to the study. “Unions win 87 percent of elections held 11 to 15 days after a request, a rate that falls to 58 percent when the vote takes place after 36 to 40 days, according to the researchers.”

    The 11 to 15 day timeframe is very close to what the new NLRB rule is expected to achieve. According to Heritage labor policy expert James Sherk, the “snap elections” rule will trim the time between an election request and the election itself to 10 to 21 days, a significant drop from the current average of 31 days.

    “If a broader set of elections were to occur more quickly,” wrote Bloomberg analysts Jason Arvelo and Ian Hathaway, “the likely outcome would be more organizing drives, a higher success rate for unions and ultimately more union membership.”

    Unions often plan organizing drives before they actually request a workplace election, while employers, who may not be aware of the effort, are forced to make their case only during the period between an election request and the actual election. Hence, shortening that period of time is more prohibitive to an employer’s ability to make the case against unionization than a union’s ability to lobby for it.

    As Sherk explained:

    Some organizers rely on aggressive sales tactics, such as “SPIN selling.” In SPIN (Situation, Problem, Implication, and Need-payoff) selling, organizers lead employees through the four emotional states to persuade them that a union will solve their problems at work—whether or not a union could actually help—and to secure a signed union-authorization card. Unions also train organizers to avoid the potential downsides to unionization, such as strikes and dues increases.

    Employees will hear the other side of the story only from management. Employers, not union organizers, will explain that unions often do not achieve their promised wage increases, but they always take up to 2 percent of workers’ wages in dues. Employers will also point out patterns of union corruption and clauses in union constitutions that levy stiff fines against workers who stray from union rules. Employers are free to tell workers what the union organizers do not.

    Workers deserve to hear from both sides and have time for reflection. They should have the right to consider whether union representation will truly benefit them. The government should not push workers into unions, much less deny them the time to consider the downsides. The NLRB’s proposed rule undermines employees’ ability to make an informed choice.

    Posted in Scribe [slideshow_deploy]

    12 Responses to NLRB's 'Snap Elections' Rule Would Dramatically Increase Unionization

    1. JeffC says:

      I would argue that the effect of this possible rule would decrease unionization because going forward companies will have to educate their employees constantly about the downside of joining a union … in effect they will be forced to pre-emptively argue against unions …

      • yintercept says:

        This may come as a shock, but most employers believe in freedom of thought. The notion that employers must be engaged in some sort of on going indoctrination to counter the indoctrination of the left is a direct affront to many employer's beliefs.

        The idea that employers must have contingency plans in the work if there is a sudden demand for a union vote goes against the grain of free market thinking.

        Personally, I have never once asked about a person's political beliefs or religion in relation to a job. The only question should be their skill. We need labor rules that help preserve this tradition.

    2. PaulC37 says:

      Employer can threaten to buck any wage & benefit increase for 5 years if union gets in. Thats right close down the business if need be. Hire scabs. File bankruptcy & restart. i.e. or game the system to do away with Unuins. The politicians will have to take a stand w/union or w/workers.

      • yintercept says:

        You seem to be subscribing magical powers to employers. Wages are driven by the market. Employers can't just decrease wages or benefits to fight unions, as these are driven by the market.

    3. JBinGB says:

      THANKS Rob ,love your work !

    4. JBinGB says:

      oops ,sorry Lachlan

    5. Joe Stickney says:

      no formal challenge or voiding unconstitutional recess appts noconfirmation review no names sent to committees

    6. Chad says:

      Glad I live in a right-to-work state>>>Indiana!!!

      • West Hartford LIFE says:

        That's great for the state of Indiana… isn't it interesting though that liberals will defend a woman's "right to choose" but not an employees' "right to choose"…

    7. CAHALL says:

      Supporting this rule only shows how threatened the unions feel and need to use scare tactics and circumvent the election process. That should give emploees insight into what the unions are capable of doing and the M.O.

    8. Riles says:

      This is a fascinating study by the two Bloomberg analysts.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×