Group Exercise Certification

Big business v the NLRB

In a long-awaited and controversial move, the National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) has issued new rules designed to streamline the process for union certification (that is, union recognition) elections, which currently allows employers significant latitude to delay the vote and undermine employee free choice. The response from the business community and the GOP has been uniformly (and predictably) negative .

In characteristically over-the-top language, Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming – ranking Republican on the Senate labour committee – called the proposals "a gift to organised labour" by a "runaway agency". The US Chamber of Commerce attacked a "blatant attempt to give unions the upper hand by limiting the ability of employers to exercise their free speech rights". And former Republican appointee to the NLRB Peter Schaumber cautioned that an employer "will be faced with an election only days away … without the ability to express itself on the issue of unionisation to its employees".

According to the board's critics, delaying litigation and speeding up access to information on election issues will mean that employees will only get to hear one side of the story – the union side – and thus make uninformed and unwise choices. Under the new election regime, they argue, the employers will be "ambushed" by union campaigns and will have no opportunity to express themselves.

Employers won't have adequate opportunity to communicate their views on unions? Really?

What does the evidence tell us about how and when employers communicate their views on unions to employees? Let's ignore the many and significant other advantages that employers enjoy under the current system of NLRB elections. Let's ignore that employers have exclusive access to employees at work during working time. Let's ignore that during organising campaigns, employers frequently force their employees to attend group and individual "captive audience" anti-union meetings (which, in any other context, would be considered a form of false imprisonment). Let's ignore that a regrettably high number of campaigns are tarnished by allegations of employers firing pro-union employees (most employees would consider getting fired a fairly clear indication of their employer's views on the subject). And let's ignore that most unions have now given up on the official NLRB election process because they consider it so biased in employers' favour.

When do employers start to communicate their anti-union message? All of the evidence suggests that employers do not wait until the start of an official NLRB election period. These are not 10-21 day campaigns that employers fear (double the length of union elections in Canadian provinces, where employers are also restricted more tightly in what they can say to employees), even though the proposed new rules do not specify any time period for elections. These are not even the 57-day campaigns that were the average for union certification elections in 2008. They are, effectively, year-round, 365-day anti-union campaigns. External "union avoidance" consultants advise that employers "should design a strategy for communicating … from day one of 'new hire orientation'". Employers frequently include unambiguous statements of their opposition to unionisation in all employee handbooks. Large employers such as Walmart, Home Depot and Staples show anti-union films to new hires as part of their inductions. (Several of these movies have recently found their way to the web.) And, perhaps most compelling of all, large corporations frequently hire internal union avoidance experts for high-level human resource positions. One recent ad states: "Union avoidance is key to this position.

Cool Group Exercise Certification images

CORONADO, Calif. (Oct. 28, 2010) Sailors assigned to the security department of the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) prepare to clear the pier during a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) 1 anti-terrorism and force protection certification exercise. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Adrian T. White/Released)

Wisconsin Guardsman condurcts contamination evaluation during training exercise Staff Sgt. Jerry Vogel, a survey team chief with the Wisconsin National Guard’s 54th Civil Support Team, is accompanied by U.S. Army North observer/controller/trainer James E. Flowers while exploring the VIP Lounge at Alpine Valley Music Theatre for "contaminants" during an external evaluation Thursday, March 25. The evaluation is required every 18 months for unit certification. In the exercise scenario, a winter concert by rock groups promoting animal cruelty was sabotaged with chemical, biological and radiological materials by an animal rights group. Wisconsin Army National Guard photo by 1st Sgt. Vaughn R. Larson

A few nice on stage hamburg images I found: Deichkind live in Concert Image by tk-link This is Deichkind.

Methods of group exercise instruction

Guide to National Professional Certification Programs

Occupational outlook handbook

Certification and accreditation programs directory

Recreational sport management