In between proponents looking to strengthen the NLRA and those looking to regulate are individuals who argue a compromise position that the NLRA should be "loosened." What are the arguments for loosening the NLRA and what proposals have been suggested as ways to do this? Refer specifically to that section of the NLRA where modifications have been proposed.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The view that argues the NLRA should be loosened focuses primarily on Section 8(a)(2) of the NLRA, the section that prohibits the use of company-dominated unions. The NLRA defines labor organizations quite broadly and can include labor-management committees as well as formal unions. The possibility that workplace committees could be ruled a violation of the NLRA has been argued to inhibit collaboration between management and labor and to unnecessarily preserve the atmosphere of adversarialism that has existed between labor and management. Thus, proponents of the "loosening" argument would like to see Section 8(a)(2) exceptions such as those proposed under the TEAM Act which would explicitly allow committees that do not attempt to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. A compromise position would be to loosen the NLRA in this regard while at the same time, making it easier for workers to unionize should they choose to do so. Another suggestion for loosening the NLRA would be to allow for employees committees that are explicitly charged with holding the employer accountable for violations of existing labor laws. If successful, this could provide employees with a platform for participating in employment law compliance tailored to the needs of each workplace. These committees might then also give additional voice to workers and allow them to shape broader codes of conduct within businesses. Employers could be encouraged to allow these committees by giving partial immunity from legal penalties when their compliance program includes effective committees.