[W]hen is a proposal to reduce frivolous litigation and reduce the number of government hearings an employer faces an unconscionable imposition of the government's will? When the frivolous litigation and unnecessary hearings are done at the instigation of the company in order to avert a timely union vote.At a July hearing on the NLRB's proposal, one worker testified about the 13-year effort to get a union in her workplace, and the six years of litigation on a single issue. The labor board's attempt to cut down on stories like that is what the Senate resolution would oppose. The resolution doesn't necessarily stop at sternly worded letter status, either:
The joint resolution will be brought up under the Congressional Review Act, which provides a way for Congress to overturn regulations. The measure can pass the Senate with 51 votes and cannot be filibustered.The House already passed one bill to block this rule, and would presumably be happy to pass another. If this gets the all-too-plausible 51 votes in the Senate, it sure would be nice to hear from President Obama that he won't be signing it.
In order to void the rule, the joint resolution would also have to pass the House and be signed by President Obama.
The Administration strongly opposes passage of S.J. Res. 36, which would overturn recent commonsense measures adopted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to streamline and modernize workplace elections and ensure that workers deciding if they wish to be represented by a union have a fair vote in a reasonable amount of time. [...]
If the President is presented with a Resolution of Disapproval that would reverse these measures adopted by the NLRB, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the Resolution.