The NLRB is gutting free speech to protect unions

Joe Biden vowed to be “the most pro-union president you’ve ever seen” during his 2020 presidential campaign. 

The reason behind Biden’s vow remains clear as day — unions are one of the largest drivers of cash to Democratic campaign coffers, spending $1.8 billion in the 2020 cycle alone. 

To deliver on this campaign promise, Biden has weaponized the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to clamp down on workplace speech and drive up union membership. Congress needs to get hold of the runaway NLRB before it is too late. 

Since the 1940s, the NLRB has allowed employers to hold mandatory meetings in the workplace to explain their position on unionization. These meetings, unfairly derided by critics as “captive audience” meetings, allow employees to learn about their rights during unionization drives. Just like any other workplace meeting, workers are compensated for their time, and employers cannot threaten or promise anything to employees in accordance with Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). 

The NLRB has considered employer meetings on unionization (EMU) protected workplace speech for nearly 80 years, and there has been no serious legal debate around restricting EMUs as long as employers do not threaten or coerce employees. According to recent polling by the Institute for the American Worker, a majority of union members hold a favorable view of EMUs. 

NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo smashed this long-held bipartisan consensus with an April memo recommending that the board ban EMUs. It appears Abruzzo wants to keep employees in the dark about their rights in the workplace so union bosses can more easily organize workplaces. 

The NLRB has also used its authority to tip the scale toward unions during organizing drives. One week before Amazon workers narrowly voted to unionize the JFK8 facility in Staten Island, the NLRB filed an emergency injunction to reinstate a terminated employee that hurled misogynistic vulgarities during an exchange with his female colleague. The terminated employee was leading a protest outside of the facility during the incident, which was live-streamed. 

Administrative law judge Benjamin Green said Amazon conducted a “skewed investigation” that resulted in an unfair termination. Apparently, workplace harassment is acceptable to the NLRB if it is in service of union goals. 

Like clockwork, the NLRB has once again stepped in to give unions a leg up. Just one week after Amazon workers voted against unionizing a New York facility on a 2-1 margin, the board filed a complaint against Amazon CEO Andy Jassy alleging that comments Jassy made in two public interviews violated federal labor law. 

Notably, the complaint does not contain direct quotes from Jassy’s interviews. Instead, it paraphrases Jassy’s comments to paint them in a negative light. One would think direct quotes, especially from public interviews easily accessible online, would be the minimum standard to accuse an individual of violating labor law. 

All of this NLRB overreach is designed to drive up union membership that has been in freefall for decades. Union workers are forced to pay dues to union bosses. The more workers that the NLRB can force into a union, the more cash that lands in Democratic campaign coffers. This shell game is great for Democrats and union bosses, but terrible for American workers. 

Instead of protecting free speech in the workplace and ensuring that employees get all the facts they need to make an informed decision about unionization, the NLRB is doing all it can to keep workers in the dark. Congress needs to stand with American workers and rein in the NLRB. 

Tom Hebert is federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform and executive director of the Open Competition Center.