HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022313.jpg
4.12 MB
Extraction Summary
1
People
11
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Federal register notice on rules and regulations
File Size:
4.12 MB
Summary
This document is a page from the Federal Register dated August 30, 2011, containing a dissenting opinion regarding a new rule from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The author argues the rule, which compels employers to post notices of employee rights, is a flawed and unauthorized attempt to increase union density. The document also details the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, which estimates a minimal compliance cost for businesses, a figure contested by industry commenters. The content of this specific document does not pertain to Jeffrey Epstein or related matters.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Garmon | Litigant |
Mentioned in the legal case citation 'San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 244 (1959)' regarding t...
|
Organizations (11)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Labor (DOL) |
Its preemption analysis is cited as being contradicted by the new rule.
|
|
| The Board |
Likely the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the agency promulgating the rule discussed in the document.
|
|
| Small Business Administration (SBA) |
Certified that the new rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities. Provided estimates on the ...
|
|
| Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) |
Source of data on hourly wages used to estimate compliance costs.
|
|
| United States Census Bureau |
Source of data on the number of businesses with employees in 2007.
|
|
| National Roofing Contractors Association |
An organization that commented on the rule, asserting that the cost estimates for businesses are too low.
|
|
| St Mar Enterprises, Inc. |
A company that commented that the rule would be 'very burdensome' for businesses with more than one facility.
|
|
| J. Picini Flooring |
A party in a 2010 NLRB case cited in a dissenting opinion by the author.
|
|
| San Diego Bldg. Trades Council |
A party in the legal case 'San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon'.
|
|
| U.S. Department of Commerce |
Source of data for SBA Office of Advocacy estimates.
|
|
| HOUSE_OVERSIGHT |
Appears as a document identifier in the footer, likely referring to the House Oversight Committee.
|
Timeline (3 events)
June 3, 2011
The Bureau of Labor Statistics published an 'Economic News Release' (Table B-8) with wage data.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The document discusses federal regulations and the 'American workforce', implying a national scope.
|
Relationships (3)
Author of the opinion
→
Disagreement / Dissent
→
The Board ('my colleagues')
The author is writing a dissenting opinion, stating their colleagues' rulemaking action is flawed, unauthorized, and contradicts other legal analysis.
The document states that the Board's rulemaking action 'contradict[s] DOL’s preemption analysis' regarding employee rights notices.
The association commented that the Board's estimate of compliance costs is likely too low.
Key Quotes (6)
"Surely, no one can seriously believe that today’s rule is primarily intended to inform employees of their Section 7 right to refrain from or to oppose organizational activities, collective bargaining, and union representation."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022313.jpg
Quote #1
"My colleagues seek through promulgation of this rule to reverse the steady downward trend in union density among private sector employees in the non-agricultural American workforce."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022313.jpg
Quote #2
"I am confident that a reviewing court will soon rescue the Board from itself and restore the law to where it was before the sorcerer’s apprentice sent it askew."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022313.jpg
Quote #3
"federal agencies have a notoriously poor track record in estimating the costs of new regulations on businesses"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022313.jpg
Quote #4
"the actual cost for many employers could be considerably higher."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022313.jpg
Quote #5
"very burdensome"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022313.jpg
Quote #6
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document