Marathon Pundit: Despite Obama's veto threat, jobs groups and senators fighting NLRB's ambush elections rule

SEIU protester

Four years ago President Obama, the most pro-union president ever, vowed to "paint the nation SEIU purple." Of course he wants to take care of all of his Big Labor buddies, who have vowed to spend $400 million on the Obama-Biden reelection effort.

Only a measly 6.9 percent of the private-sector workforce belongs to a union.

Here's what the Workforce Fairness Institute says:

"President Obama has cemented himself as someone who is more concerned with paying back Big Labor bosses than working with employees and employers to create jobs and turn around the nation’s economy. It is no accident that union bosses continue to be rewarded by Obama after they have committed one billion dollars to his campaigns for national office," said Fred Wszolek, spokesperson for the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI). "By supporting reckless ambush elections and threatening to veto legislation undoing this gross overreach by unelected government bureaucrats there is little question that the White House has entirely traded away any shred of credibility when discussing workplace issues. U.S. Senators concerned with their own standing among their constituents will support policies ensuring workers can make an informed decision on an issue critically important to their livelihoods."

The Senate Republican Communications Center weighs in too.

Jobs Groups Blast Ambush Elections

Jobs Groups Say The Obama Administration’s New Ambush Election Rule ‘Will Hit Small Businesses Particularly Hard,’ ‘Stifle Job Growth’

NLRB ‘Ignoring The Costs’

U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: “… the National Labor Relations Board's final ‘ambush election rule’ imposes unprecedented and sweeping changes to the procedures for conducting workplace elections… blatantly partisan… purpose of this rule is to ensure that employers have no time to talk to their workers about unionizing, and that the only information workers will get will come from the union.” (“Chamber Lawsuit Challenges NLRB's Ambush Election Rule,” National Chamber Litigation Center, Accessed 4/23/12)

·         CHAMBER: “…increasing legal and compliance costs, particularly on small employers.” (The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, Letter To Lester Heltzer, NLRB, P.3, 8/22/11)

·         CHAMBER: “…entirely ignoring the costs that the proposed rule would have on the majority of employers in the United States…” (The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce, Letter To Lester Heltzer, NLRB, P.57, 8/22/11)

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS: “…I am writing in support of S.J.Res. 36, a resolution of disapproval in response to the National Labor Relation Board’s (NLRB) rule related to ‘ambush’ elections… would particularly harm small businesses...” (National Federation Of Independent Business, Letter To Senator Mike Enzi, 2/27/12)

·         NFIB: “This shortened time frame will hit small businesses particularly hard…” (National Federation Of Independent Business, Letter To Senator Mike Enzi, 2/27/12)

·         NFIB: “…will only create more uncertainty for small business owners at a time when the country needs them to be creating more jobs.” (National Federation Of Independent Business, Letter To Senator Mike Enzi, 2/27/12)

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS: “The ambush election rule is a guaranteed pathway to creating a fractured American workplace. Manufacturers strongly oppose this misguided rule…” (National Associated Of Manufacturers, “Manufacturers Speak Out Against Ambush Election Rule,” Press Release, 12/21/11)

·         NAM: “…not in the best interest of workers and raise serious questions as for whom the Board is truly advocating.” (National Associated Of Manufacturers, “Manufacturers Speak Out Against Ambush Election Rule,” Press Release, 12/21/11)

ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS: “These actions will havenegative implications for workers, consumers, businesses and the economy…”(Associated Builders And Contractors, Letter To House Of Representatives, 11/28/11)

·         ABC: “What’s most disturbing is that the NLRB continues to move forward with policies and rules that are a political payoff off to Big Labor, yet harm the construction industry and stifle job growth.” (Associated Builders And Contractors, “NLRB Rams Through Changes To Union Elections, Employees Come Out On Losing End,” Press Release, 12/21/11)

INDEPENDENT ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS: “…contentious and unnecessary...” (Independent Electrical Contractors, “NLRB Passes Final Ruling On Ambush Elections,” Press Release, Accessed 4/23/12)

·         IEC: “This new rule circumvents a fair and democratic process for everyone, and does nothing but hinder business and job growth.” (Independent Electrical Contractors, “NLRB Passes Final Ruling On Ambush Elections,” Press Release, Accessed 4/23/12)

INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISE ASSOCIATION: “The rule would greatly impair the business community, in particular, the 825,000 franchise establishments in America, which collectively support nearly 18 million jobs or 12 percent of the U.S. private sector workforce…” (International Franchise Association, “IFA Applauds Congressional Challenge To NLRB Ambush Election Rules,” Press Release, 2/16/12)

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), the ranking member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee made these comments earlier today:

It's important to understand that the NLRB is not an agency that typically issues regulations. In fact, in over 75 years, the NLRB has finalized only three rules through formal rule-making -- two of which occurred last year. This ambush elections rule is not a response to a real problem, because the current election process for certifying whether employees want to form a union is not broken.

Click here for his full statement.

Sen. John Thune (R-SD) wrote the following for The Hill:

The NLRB's highly politicized ruling unfairly favors unions and limits the ability of small business owners like those in my home state of South Dakota, unfamiliar with complex and often obscure labor laws, to seek and find adequate representation. At a time when Washington should be trying to support and reassure employers worried about meeting payroll each week, the Board's "ambush" election rule instead heightens uncertainty and concern that Washington is completely out of touch.