New Legislation Would Prevent Unions From Receiving Employee Info

One of the things that really irks me about the union election process(other than the fact we have union elections at all) is the “Excelsior list” which allows unions to obtain employee’s personal info including their names and addresses.

This info allows labor unions to intimidate their employees into joining out of fear that they will experience retaliatory ‘courtesy visits’ from their buddies down at the meeting hall.

The notoriously anti-business NLRB will do anything and everything to empower Big Labor.

To make matters worse, the infamous National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is considering allowing unions access to phone numbers and email addresses, too, a move that would inevitably lead to harassing phone calls, emails, and possible cybersecurity threats for a coerced and powerless membership.

Florida┬áRepresentative Sandy Adams (R-24) and 33 co-sponsors have introduced HR 3991 which would prevent this frightening ‘big brother’ NLRB regulation from taking effect. Adams’s bill is exactly the type of legislation that New Jersey Republicans in the House should support, Save Jerseyans.

In the Garden State, we have seen first hand the damage that renegade unions can inflict upon both the public and private sectors. Allowing Barbara Keshishian and her ilk to access private information without members’ consent would be unacceptable and dangerous. Hopefully, HR 3991 will make it through the House and make it to the U.S. Senate where, unfortunately, it faces a much tougher test.

But who knows; stranger things happen every day in Washington!

 

2 thoughts on “New Legislation Would Prevent Unions From Receiving Employee Info

  1. Look, I'm not a fan of unions, but I really think you're off here. If the state legislature operated on an election scheme where the Democrats had access to an election list that included phones, addresses and emails, and all we had was a list of names with some addresses, would we say that was fair? I don't think so.

    I'm all about raising penalties for intimidation–for unions and employers–but I think this is a fundamental issue of fairness that we'd be really upset with if we were told the rules before we were told the candidates in the election.

Comments are closed.