Tag: Election

Office Politics: The Basics for Private Employers

In case you haven’t noticed the yard signs popping up like mushrooms, the constant barrage of television and radio advertisements, or the unsolicited text messages from unknown numbers, we are in the homestretch of election season. For those employers with questions on how to handle political speech in the workplace, especially during the last few days before (and hopefully not much beyond) Election Day, here is a refresher on the basics for private employers.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from enacting laws to prohibit the free exercise of speech and assembly, among other liberties. It does not apply to private employers. Where there is no state action involved, there is no unfettered right to free speech in a private place of employment. Quite simply, a private employer can enact rules to keep political expression from its workplace. Some employers prohibit political speech in the workplace to avoid potential disruptions to business operations, customer relations, or employee morale.

If an employer adopts a policy concerning political expression and messaging, it must do so fairly and consistently, and it should be inclusive and consistent to avoid the perception of favoritism or discrimination. In other words, if an employer requires Meghan to remove her Kamala button, it should also direct Dennis not to wear his Trump t-shirt. Remote workers are still “in the workplace” when they participate in virtual meetings, so there are no separate rules for them.

When enacting rules about political expression and messaging in the workplace, private employers should of course remain aware of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which applies to both union and non-union settings, and among other things protects employees’ ability to engage in concerted activity or to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment. Therefore, private employers must be mindful of a potential nexus or overlap between employees’ political speech and discussion of working conditions. Under the NLRA, for instance, employees may distribute information during non-working time about a candidate’s stance on a particular issue that may also constitute a complaint about the employees’ working conditions.

© Copyright Babst, Calland, Clements and Zomnir, P.C.
For more on Political Speech, visit the NLR Constitutional Law section.

A View From Washington, DC — Budgets, Bills, and Elections

February in Washington, DC, usually ushers in the start of a new federal budget approval process, but that will not be the case this year. President Joe Biden is not expected to release his fiscal year 2023 budget until later this spring, which will be followed by congressional hearings and oversight on our nation’s federal spending. While the president’s budget is not binding, in a Congress controlled by his own party, his suggestions on how Congress should appropriate our federal dollars are certainly taken seriously.

Furthering delays, Congress is still mired in passing the fiscal year 2022 appropriations bills — which appear to now be on target for passage in mid-March. Part of the slowdown on passing these bills revolves around an agreement on the overall topline spending number. The House approved $1.506 trillion in spending in its versions of the 12 annual appropriations bills. The Senate never released a topline number. President Biden’s budget request was for $1.523 trillion, $770 billion for nondefense spending and $753 billion for defense spending. Also of note, assuming these bills are enacted, it will be the first time in a decade that Congress has provided funds for earmarks (now referred to as “community projects”) through appropriations legislation.

Another weighty item on Congress’ agenda is the reauthorization of the nation’s flood insurance program. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was last reauthorized in 2012, when Congress passed the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012. The NFIP’s five-year reauthorization ended on September 30, 2017, and since then, the program has been funded by a series of short-term measures. The program is currently operating under an extension that expired on February 18, 2022. The purpose of the Biggert-Waters Act was to make the NFIP solvent, as the program faced a $24 billion deficit. But anyone who has kept apprised of the program knows it’s not solvent and is broken in many respects. Current policyholders are facing an 18% policy rate increase in the coming year.

Finally, once summer arrives, many in Congress will turn their attention in earnest to the mid-term elections in November. Several states have new congressional maps due to redistricting. The released census data gave Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Montana, and Oregon additional seats, while California, New York, and Pennsylvania (among others) lost seats. In an almost evenly divided House, the Republicans only need to pick up three to five seats in order to take control, and most observers expect that to happen. The current US Senate is evenly divided and most incumbent Senate seats are safe, but a few states, such as Georgia, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, are statistically tied in current polling and are truly toss-up elections at this point, leaving control of the US Senate up for grabs.

© 2022 Jones Walker LLP
For more articles about election and legislative updates, visit the NLR Election & Legislative section.

Medicare and the 2020 Election

Now that the campaign for President appears to be down to two candidates, we need to address the health care questions that both will face. In this blog, we will talk about Medicare and in a later blog, we will talk about the public option.

A question which has faced not just these two individuals, President Trump and Presidential Candidate Biden, but has faced the country for the last 10-15 years, is the projected deficit in the Medicare program as it is now configured.  In an attempt to respond to and ameliorate this deficit, various steps have been taken in the past which have delayed the impact of the deficit but have not eliminated it.  Past steps that have been taken include the elimination of the cap on W-2 earnings for purposes of calculating the Medicare tax, the application of the Medicare tax to non-W-2 earnings for individuals whose taxable income is above a certain level, calculation of Medicare Part B monthly premiums based upon income (the higher the income, the higher the premium that needs to be paid by the beneficiary), and the attempt to both explicitly and implicitly limit the payments being made by the Medicare program for services provided to Medicare beneficiaries.  The explicit attempt was the development of the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR), which was never effectively implemented and ultimately repealed.  The implicit attempt is ongoing and has resulted in the necessity for beneficiaries with private insurance to subsidize the care being provided to the Medicare (that’s correct, not Medicaid, but Medicare) beneficiaries.

This “subsidy” by private insurance to health care providers to cover the costs of providing care to the Medicare beneficiaries is slowly having an impact on the care delivery system. It has resulted in a few prior Medicare providers now refusing to render care to Medicare patients in the non-hospital setting.  It is also encouraging physicians only to take Medicare patients who have previously been their private patients when that individual had private insurance so that the continuity of care to those individuals is not being disrupted.

As this subsidy increases, it becomes more and more likely that fewer providers will be providing care to Medicare beneficiaries, to the extent that they can legally opt out.

The next issue raised in the campaign is the extension of the Medicare program proposed by Presidential Candidate Biden to individuals from the ages of 60-65. Unlike the Social Security program, which attempted to resolve its deficit problems by extending the retirement age from age 65 over a period of time to age 67, the proposal by Presidential Candidate Biden is the opposite and that is to reduce the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

The questions that need to be answered are:

  1. How much is it going to cost?
  2. The proposal recognizes that the current Medicare program (currently facing a shortfall) cannot pay for the services provided to these new Medicare beneficiaries and proposes that the government pay the costs–which means the taxpayer. The question then is what changes will be made to the tax code and whose taxes will be increased–of course this raises the questions always associated with tax increases.
  3. It appears that all aspects of the Medicare program – Parts A, B, C, and D – will be available to the age cohort 60 to 65. Will the copays, deductibles and premiums, as applied to current Medicare beneficiaries, be applicable to this cohort?
  4. Will the same payments be made to the providers for care rendered to this cohort of new Medicare beneficiaries? Will this adversely impact the willingness of some providers to continue to participate in providing care to Medicare beneficiaries?

When answers to these questions become clear, to the extent that it does become clear, we will analyze these questions in a subsequent blog. Otherwise at this point in time, it is speculation as to the impact.

© 2020 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved

Why does it Matter if the NRA Used Russian Money to help Donald Trump’s Election?

The old saying goes, that “when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” And as a campaign finance lawyer, I have to remind myself that not every story is a money in politics story. But the more I look at the 2016 election and what transpired, campaign finance is at the heart of the scandal.

To wit, this January, McClatchy reported that the FBI is allegedly investigating whether a Russian banker named Aleksander Torshin (who’s also wanted on criminal charges in Spain for unrelated matters) may have funneled money into the National Rifle Association (NRA) for the benefit of the candidacy of Donald Trump in 2016. At this point, all this is just a press report. We don’t have confirmation of this investigation.

In March, Politico reported that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is investigating whether there really was any Russian money running through the NRA in the 2016 presidential election. This comes on the heels of Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden asking similar questions to the NRA.

Illegal Political Sources

But why would this be so significant if the story of rubles flowing through the NRA is correct? For one, such spending by a foreigner in an American election is totally illegal under American law. Indeed foreign electoral spending has been barred since 1966 amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). And with a Special Counsel actively indicting people for their roles in the 2016 election, this could become part of that criminal probe.

We Were Warned

Second, if the NRA-Russia-Trump nexus is borne out by the facts, then it will vindicate warnings from Supreme Court Justices and campaign finance reformers who said inviting secretive corporate money into our politics would provide cover for illegal foreign spending in American elections.

This caution was part of Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissent in Citizens United. He was leery of the possibility that inviting corporations into U.S. elections could invite foreign influence. As he wrote, “[u]nlike voters in U.S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled.” He also noted the absurdity of giving equal protection to foreign speakers in this context: it would be like “accord[ing] the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by ‘Tokyo Rose’ during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders.”

This warning that dark money could hide foreign money was particularly pronounced from transparency advocates among campaign finance reformers. In 2016, the FEC tried to promulgate new rules to clarify reporting requirements. But the FEC deadlocked and no new rules were finalized.

Without Clear Transparency Rules Dark Money Flourished

In the absence of new clear rules from the FEC, or Congress for that matter, dark money has increased. As I described in the law review article Dark Money As a Political Sovereignty Problem, since 2010, over $800 million in “dark money” has been spent in federal elections. Because of the dark money problem, often we don’t know what we don’t know about corporate money in politics—including whether it is from an illegal foreign source.

There is a data chart showing $183.8 million in dark money in 2016; $177.7 million in dark money in 2014; $308.6 million in dark money in 2012 and $135.6 million in dark money in 2010.

The growth of dark money is often blamed on the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision, Citizens United v. FEC. Paradoxically, Citizens United upheld the constitutionality of disclosure of the underlying sources of money in politics by a vote of 8 to 1. But regulators did not take up the Supreme Court’s open invitation to improve disclosure laws after Citizens United, thereby allowing dark money to metastasize like a cancer on our democracy.

How Dark Money Gets Dark

Here’s how dark political money works. Say you have a company that wants to exercise its Citizens United rights, but it doesn’t want to tell the public. That company gives the money to a politically active 501(c)(4) social welfare organization or 501(c)(6) trade association. Then that nonprofit buys political ads in a federal election. The FEC doesn’t require the nonprofit to reveal where it got the money. Even if the company is publicly traded, there is no SEC rule that requires the company to tell investors that they are spending money in politics. For even more secrecy, money can also be routed through a shell corporation like an LLC to make tracing the money even more difficult.

The Allegation

The reporting by McClatchy (and others) alleges that NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), a 501(c)(4) arm of the NRA, that does not disclose its donors, received money from the Russian banker Torshin. We don’t know if that happened.

We do know how the NRA spent its money. In 2016, the NRA expended $54,398,558 in outside political spending. The NRA spent $31 million of that money to support Mr. Trump’s candidacy. According to Open Secrets.org, showing $183.8 million in dark money in 2016; $177.7 million in dark money in 2014; $308.6 million in dark money in 2012 and $135.6 million in dark money in 2010.

It is outlandish to think that the NRA would wittingly or unwittingly violate American campaign finance law? At this point we don’t know if they have done anything wrong. However, the NRA has a long history of fighting campaign finance regulations. In 2010 when the Congress was on the verge of passing the DISCLOSE Act which would have brought transparency to money in politics post-Citizens United, lobbyists for the NRA got a legislative carve out so that new disclosure would not apply to them.

The NRA was also center stage in litigation against the last big federal campaign law, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (better known as BRCA or McCain-Feingold). In 2002, the NRA and one its PACs, National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund were plaintiffs challenging the constitutionality of BRCA. This case was consolidated into the case that became McConnell v. FEC, a case that ended up upholding the constitutionality of BRCA, including its campaign finance disclosure requirements. Moreover, in 2001 the NRA was held liable for campaign finance violations from the 1978 and 1982 elections.

Conclusion

Like so many aspects of the multiple investigations into what really happened in the 2016 election, the public has no idea what will ultimately be revealed. Reading the news has become like a live action spy novel. It is possible further investigation will only exonerate the NRA and the Russian banker. But one strain to keep an eye on is whether any foreign money helped elect a U.S. president. Did I mention that’s completely illegal?

 

© Copyright 2018 Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law

Choosing the Next Vice President [PODCAST]

Every election, months before an official candidate is nominated, the names of potential vice presidents are floated around. For each presidential candidate there are different factors to consider, and over the years the role of the vice president seems to have changed. This podcast, featuring Vincent C. Immel Professor of Law Joel K. Goldstein, will explore what the future holds for the candidates and for the office itself.

Corie:

I’m Corie Dugas. Thanks for joining us. We have Professor Joel Goldstein, the Vincent C. Immel Professor of Law and highly respected scholar on the Vice Presidency. Today we will explore what the future holds for the candidates and for the office itself. Welcome to the show Joel.

Joel:

Hi, Corie.

Corie:

Well to start things off, can you give the listeners a refresher on the important responsibilities of the vice president once elected?

Joel:

The constitution gives the vice president two responsibilities. He or she is the president of the Senate and is the first successor in case of a death, resignation, removal or disability of the president. But, in fact, that doesn’t really describe very well what the modern Vice President does. The Vice President rarely presides over the senate. Instead, ever since Walter Mondale was Vice President in 1977, the vice presidents become a highly important, engaged, involved member of the Executive Branch, who works closely with the president in the White House, is a close presidential advisor, and takes on assignments from the president.

Corie:

Ok, so now that things have sort of changed since Mondale, what makes a good vice president?

Joel:

It’s a difficult job because for a vice president to be successful, he has to have a good relationship with the president. He has to add something substantive to the administration that it needs, whether it’s the ability of a spokesperson, or as a diplomat or a congressional liaison. But, really a vice president has to be both a leader and a follower. A vice president has to be able to deal with world leaders and congressional leaders as an equal, but also has to be able to operate in a situation where he or she isn’t the decider; rather they’re implementing what somebody else has decided.

Corie:

 So we’re really amping up into the election season. In general, what are the presidential candidates that we have out there looking for in a potential vice president?

Joel:

The basic things that a presidential candidate looks for in a vice president is somebody at the least who hopefully can help them improve their chances of being elected, but who at least won’t hurt them. They don’t want the vice president to become a major drag on their candidacy. So there’s an elaborate vetting process that takes place to see, to examine the potential vice presidential candidates in detail. Find out everything about their lives. Joe Liebermann said that it was like having a colonoscopy without an anesthesia. So they do this to try and eliminate candidates who will have negative baggage that will hurt the ticket. But they usually are looking for somebody who could at least provide or who could hopefully provide some boost. Sometimes it’s a question of picking somebody who could help unify the party. Sometimes it’s helping them with a demographic where they’re weak or where they’re a part of the party or the constituency where the presidential candidate is weak.

Corie:

Are there any particular personality characteristics that you think are important for a vice candidate?

Joel:

Well vice presidential candidates I think needs to be presidential. There’ll be a debate of probably 90 minutes where the vice presidential candidates and if you’re a presidential candidate, you don’t want to be sitting watching that debate as your campaign goes down the tubes because people see that you’ve put somebody potentially a heartbeat away from the presidency who doesn’t belong there. Moreover, you want somebody who is presidential because who you choose as vice president is often sort of the first presidential decision that a presidential candidate makes. So it’s sometimes viewed as sort of a test on how good of a decision maker somebody is. The other thing you need in a vice presidential candidate is somebody who is a good follower. Somebody who will recognize that two greats they’re being given a plan, a script and they need to follow it. They’re not the person who gets to dictate strategy. They help implement a strategy that others have set.

Corie:

So, if the vice presidential candidates are followers, which seems that that is really important and that makes perfect sense, can they really be influential in the policy that’s presented in the campaign?

Joel:

Well they can be in some respects. I mean, they can be influential with the presidential candidate and his or her advisors to the extent that they’re respected by the presidential candidate. I mean for instance when Michael Dukakis chose Lloyd Benson, Dukakis and Dukakis’s top aides really grew to respect Benson a lot and sometimes Dukakis’s aids would even go to Benson and ask Benson to say things to Dukakis as a way to persuading him. But they also can be influential in the campaign, to the extent that they’re an effective sales person for the presidential candidate, to the extent that they are good at articulating themes that the campaign wants to get across. In 1960, when John Kennedy was running for president, he was attacked on the ground that he was Catholic. Lyndon Johnson very effectively went through the south and would talk about JFK’s war record and the war record of John F. Kennedy’s brother who was killed in World War II, and would say that when those young men went out to fight for their country, nobody asked what religion they were. And so a vice presidential candidate who is an effective messenger and an effective articulator of the themes that the campaign wants to get across can also be influential in the campaign.

Corie:

So you’ve listed a number of characteristics and given some great examples of some excellent vice presidential candidates and what they’ve helped the presidential candidates with. What do you think are some of the names that we will be hearing on the democratic ticket in the upcoming election?

Joel:

Well it’s always a bit unpredictable until you get closer, but I think some of the people that might be considered, especially if Secretary Clinton is the nominee, would be Secretary Castro, who is the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and Secretary Lopez, who is the Secretary of Labor – have both been widely mentioned. They are two candidates who are young – relatively new to the national scene, but are thought to be helpful in terms of mobilizing support among the Hispanic community. Senator Cory Booker from New Jersey is sort of a up and coming new member of the senate. Senator Ted Cain of Virginia was one of the ten finalists that then Senator Obama considered in 2008. He’s an influential senator from a potential swing state. Senator Sherrod brown from Ohio is another who, I think, Secretary Clinton might consider. Again, somebody who is well thought of by the more liberal wing from the Democratic Party also comes from Ohio. So I think those may be the people who will be considered on the democratic side.

Corie:

Is there any names that come to mind if Bernie Sanders moves forward as the nominee?

Joel:

Well I think that if Senator Sanders was the nominee, I think some of the same names. You would expect that he would try and strengthen himself in some of the areas where he’s been weaker. Let’s say some of the traditional democratic constituencies, African Americans, Hispanics –where he hasn’t run as well. He also would be somebody who, unlike Secretary Clinton, who doesn’t have perceived national security credential. So, he also would be looking for somebody stronger in that area. You know, where as in her case, she doesn’t really need to cover that.

Corie:

That makes a lot of sense. Is there anybody that you see potentially popping up on the Republican ticket?

Joel:

Well the Republican ticket a lot depends on who the nominee is. But one person who has been mentioned widely and who would be considered on the Republican side would be Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina. She was the person chosen to give the response to President Obama’s State of the Union address in January. She’s supported Senator Rubio, which would mean if somebody other than Senator Rubio is the nominee she would be perceived as a bridge to that part of the party. Also is a woman and somebody who I think is perceived as an effective governor of South Carolina. She would be helpful in a race against Secretary Clinton. I think there could be some people from Donald Trump –said he would take a political insider and said Governor Haley would fit that bill. People like Senator John Thune from South Dakota or Senator John Corn from Texas might be sort of people who might be considered. It could be a long list and this point it is sort of unpredictable to say. There could some different dynamics that play out on the Republican Party that we have encountered in recent times.

Corie:

How will the naming of the Vice Presidential candidate, when we get there, change how the campaigns look?

Joel:

Well once you name one vice presidential candidate and then two vice presidential candidates, instead of the race becoming a competition between two people; it becomes a competition, in a way, between two couples. Particularly, if either of the running mates is a new face, there is almost a feeding frenzy that takes place as America is introduced to somebody new. Paul Ryan in 2012. Governor Palin in 2008. Even somebody like Senator Biden, who had been in the Senate for 36 years, have shared major committees, run for president and so forth; the level of coverage that you receive as a vice presidential nominee is well beyond anything you have ever received in any other type of political life. So there’ll be a focus of the new candidate and what that selection says about the person who selected him or her. I mean ultimately people vote based upon their preferences of the presidential candidates but how they perceive the vice presidential candidates, what messages it sends about the presidential candidates are things that some people take into account. I think those are ways in which selection changes the dynamic of the campaign. It gives us somebody new to talk about, somebody new to write about. And often times, new candidates – in which the presidential candidates have been doing this for long periods of time, I mean it is if they’re in mid-season farm. Vice presidential candidates is somebody who is selected and hasn’t been used to doing this. So, sometimes in the early stages they have committed gaffes and those create their own sort of patterns of coverage and problems for a ticket.

Corie:

And by the time we get to the naming of Vice Presidential candidates, we’ll have been with months and months of hearing of hearing form the presidential candidates, so it might be fresh new voices in there as well. In the recent elections, have you seen any examples of vice presidential candidate that have stood out as good picks that have really helped elevate the presidential candidate?

Joel:

Well, I think there have been a few. I think that, depending on how far back one goes, in 1976, I think that pretty clearly that Jimmy Carter would not have been elected if not have been for Mondale’s role in the campaign. And in the vice presidential debate, Mondale helped Carter in a couple of decisive states. I think that in 1992, Al Gore really helped Bill Clinton reinforce the image of Clinton as a young southern democratic centrist. Gore was the same thing. So when you put the two together, the picture of the two of them, their spouses, really presented a image of change that was more powerful than just seeing Governor Clinton. I think that Dick Cheney in 2000, lent gravitas to President Bush’s candidacy. I think it was reassuring that where you had somebody who could governor, but had someone with no national security experience to be bringing on to his ticket somebody who had experience leading the defense department during the Persian Gulf War. I think the choice of Governor Palin in 2008, initially really energized the Republican base, the conservative part of the republican party who had never been enamored with Senator McCain became enthusiastic about him for the first time. Ultimately, over the course of the campaign, I think Governor Palin had some fairly disastrous interviews and so forth. Her numbers went down and she became something of an albatross for the campaign, but the initial period of selection, she really provided some energy and boost for his campaign. But one of the lessons I think is that sometimes presidential candidates choose somebody who will look good in July and August and while that may be important, ultimately it’s also important as to how they’re going to be perceived in October and November.

Corie:

Professor Goldstein also has a new book on this topic, The White House Vice Presidency: The Path to Significance, Mondale to Biden. This book is out now. So thank you so much for joining us today Joel. I hope you all had a chance to read the book. This has all been very informative and interesting discussion.

Joel:

Thanks Corie, it’s been fun.

Revitalized National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Takes on Vigorous Agenda Including Reissued Quickie Union Election Rules And Greater Employee Handbook Scrutiny

Sills-Cummis-Gross-607x84

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) has been notably active in the first quarter of 2014.

As addressed in our March 2013 Alert, the Board faced uncertainty regarding its power to act following the January 23, 2013 decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Noel Canning held that President Obama’s three recess appointments to the Board, made on January 4, 2012, were unconstitutional. Then, in August 2013, the NLRB received a full complement of five Senate-confirmed members.

While it has taken a few months for the Board to ramp up after the new members were sworn in, the newly invigorated NLRB is quickly making up for that time. For instance, the Board issued 19 decisions in January 2014 alone.

Below are summaries of certain significant NLRB developments from the first quarter of 2014:

NLRB Proposes Quickie Election Rules Again – Will Help Unions to Organize On February 5, 2014, the Board reissued proposed amendments to its existing rules governing union election procedures, new rules which it first proposed in2011. These rules will make union organizing easier by dramatically expediting the Union election process. In May 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia had blocked the prior rules, holding that the NLRB lacked a quorum when it adopted those rules.

The new proposed rules, which the Board issued with a full quorum, would make several significant changes that would greatly benefit unions. The proposed rules would:

  • speed up union elections by ending the current practice of scheduling pre-election hearings within fourteen days from the petition filing and instead requiring hearings to be held within seven days of the filing;
  • substantially reduce an employer’s right to litigate whether employees are eligible to vote prior to an election, by automatically deferring such issues until after the election; and
  • require employers to provide union organizers with the names, addresses, email addresses and phone numbers of employees once a petition has been filed.
  • The NLRB is accepting public comments on the proposal until April 7, 2014. In addition, the Board will hold a public hearing on the proposed rules during the week of April 7, 2014.

NLRB Employee Handbook Scrutiny The Board has been more closely examining provisions in companies’ employee handbooks. This increased scrutiny impacts employers in both union and non- union workplaces.

As noted in our April 2013 Alert, several of the Board’s prominent decisions over the past few years have addressed social media policies. Recently, the NLRB has expanded its focus to other aspects of employer handbook policies, such as those policies pertaining to confidentiality, dispute resolution, at-will employment statements, and non-union statements.

A recent example is a decision issued by an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that partially invalidated an employer’s dress code. Boch Imports, Inc., NLRB, No. 1-CA-83551 (Jan. 13, 2014).

In Boch, the ALJ found that a dress code provision in a Honda dealer’s employee handbook that prohibited employees who have contact with the public from wearing pins, insignia, or other message clothing violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”) (which prohibits employers from interfering with employees as they engage in protected concerted activity). Although the dress code rule applied to all pins, insignia, or other message clothing, the ALJ found that the rule violated an employee’s presumptive right to display a union insignia in the workplace.

Notice Posting Rule Abandoned – But New Emphasis on Digital Media to Publicize NLRA’s Protections in Union and Non-Union Workplaces The Board has decided not to seek U.S. Supreme Court review of two U.S. Court of Appeals decisions which held that the NLRB’s Notice Posting Rule was invalid. The Notice Posting Rule would have required private employers to post a notice in the workplace of employee rights under the Act.

The Board has issued an update on its website stating that the NLRB remains committed to making sure that “workers, businesses and labor organization are informed of their rights and obligations under the National Labor Relations Act.” According to that update, the workplace poster is available on the NLRB website and may be disseminated voluntarily. The Board has also established a free mobile app for iPhone and Android users, which provides information about the NLRA.

Although the NLRB chose to abandon its proposed Notice Posting Rule, the Board’s subsequent statements and its use of digital media to disseminate information about the Act demonstrate a commitment to remain relevant, modernize, and seek to influence employees in both unionized and non-unionized workplaces.

Employer Take Aways

  • Employees must prepare for the new quickie election rules. Management must promote positive employee relations before union organizing occurs. Employers will no longer have the time to campaign fully against unionization once a labor organization files a petition.
  • Employers must be very mindful of the Board’s increased focus on non-union workplaces, including its scrutiny of employee handbook and social media policies.

The NLRA applies to virtually all private sector employers, whether unionized or not unionized. If the NLRB finds that a policy violates the NLRA, the Board may order that the employer rescind that policy and may also require management to post a notice to employees stating that the employer will not violate the Act. The NLRB may also invalidate any discipline or termination that the employer based on that policy and can require the reinstatement, with back pay, of any discharged employee.

  • The U.S. Supreme Court is still considering the Board’s appeal of Noel Canning, which may require the Board to revisit certain prior rulings. In the meantime, the NLRB is moving forward with its vigorous agenda.
Article By:

David I. Rosen
Galit Kierkut
Charles S. Zucker
Grace A. Byrd
Of:
Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

Evaluating Political Candidates

The National Law Review recently published an article by the Health Government Relations Team of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP regarding Evaluating Political Candidates:

With Election Day less than 100 days away, primary season is winding down and the candidates for the general elections (Presidential, Congressional, state, and local) in November have become more apparent. As the choices for November’s election are clearer, how does one go about evaluating the candidates? Voting is an important civic responsibility and making an informed choice when voting is essential. Below are some tips and resources to help you research candidates’ positions on issues that are of importance to you.

  • First, decide what issues and qualities are most important to you. You may deem health care, the economy, foreign policy, or something else most important, but it is essential to evaluate your priorities and stances before attempting to evaluate the candidates’ positions. Also, think about what personal qualities you think are important – past experience, previous leadership or political positions, personality, etc.
  • Visit the candidates’ websites – either their official website if they already hold office or their campaign website – to find out their positions. Candidates generally have an “issues” section where they address major policy topics.
    • To research the Presidential candidates, visit the campaign websites of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
    • If you do not already know who represents you in Congress, visit the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate websites and search by your zip code or state to find the Members of Congress representing your state and district. These official websites can give you an idea of issues important to each Member and past actions they have taken. Those running for reelection will also have a separate campaign website, which can be found by searching for the Member on the internet. The title of these websites is usually something such as “Eric Cantor for Congress” or “Tammy Baldwin for Senate” while the official website will generally have a title along the lines of “Rep. Eric Cantor,” “Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin,” or “Max Baucus: U.S. Senator from Montana.”
    • Likewise, to find your state representatives, your state’s official government page should have a search function to find out who represents you more locally.
    • To find out who is challenging these incumbents, either search the internet or visit a site such as the League of Women Voter’s “Vote411” site. Vote411 allows you to enter your address and find your local, state, federal district numbers, which can then be used to search for candidates running in those races.

In addition to checking out issues, official and campaign websites also usually have a biographical section, which can provide information on the candidates’ previous experience, family, and civic involvement. These personal factors may also weigh on your decision.

  • Look up candidates’ records, or any statements they have made or how they have previously voted, on your selected issues. This may be harder to find (or may not be possible) if a candidate has never held elected office before. For current U.S. House and Senate members, visit Thomas, the Library of Congress’ website, to look up cosponsorship of bills. Additionally, the “issues” section on both official and campaign websites can provide information on previous support or opposition and actions the candidate has taken on an issue. Campaign literature can also provide insight.
  • Look to see who has endorsed the candidates. Websites like Open Secrets also will provide clues as to where candidates’ campaign funding is coming from – possibly from people or organizations you trust (or disagree with).
  • Carefully consider what others – opposing candidates, the news, even your friends and relatives – say about the candidate. Monitor the news and listen to what others are saying but be on the lookout for any bias or “spin.” Be wary of any TV ad tactics appealing to emotions – look for any buried messages about issues beneath the “attacks.”
  • Finally, evaluate and match your findings with the issues and qualities you outlined as important to you. In some cases, a clear choice that matches your criteria may be evident early on in your research, other times a distinction between candidates or one candidate who obviously identifies with your views may not be as clear.

Researching candidates does not need to be an extremely time consuming activity – using the resources and tips above, look into candidates in as much or as little detail as you feel is necessary. The important thing is to make a knowledgeable choice aligned with your values going into the voting booth on November 6th!

©2012 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

‘Super PACs’ Spend $13 Million on Early Primaries, Romney Top Beneficiary

Posted previously by the National Law Review, an article by The Center for Public Integrity regarding Super PACs Spending on Early Primaries:

New outside spending groups, dubbed super PACs, that can accept unlimited donations from corporations and wealthy individuals, spent $12.9 million in Iowa and other early GOP battleground states through New Year’s Day, according to an analysis of federal data.

The top beneficiary was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. A total of $4.6 million was spent to help the nominal front-runner, the vast majority for ads torpedoing former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Second was Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who benefited from $3.7 million in outside spending.

According to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of Federal Election Commission data,12 outside super PACs spent money, mostly on advertising, with the intention of electing or defeating a GOP presidential candidate. Ten have not yet reported their donors. The two that have did so last summer.

The upshot is that voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, all of whose contests will be held this month, won’t know who is paying for much of the advertising they see until after their votes are cast.

The next reports on donors aren’t due until January 31, the day of the Florida primary.

Federal court decisions in 2010 made it possible for individuals, corporations and labor unions to give unlimited contributions to political organizations (super PACs) and certain types of nonprofits, which can then spend the money to elect or defeat candidates. The groups are prohibited from coordinating their activities with candidates.

The top super PAC spender was “Restore Our Future” — the ambiguously named group set up to help Romney. The group spent $4.1 million, all of it in opposition to Gingrich, who enjoyed a brief lead in Iowa polls last month before the shellacking.

Restore Our Future has moved on from Iowa and spent $622,000 in Florida, a likely harbinger of more to come in that high stakes contest. Almost $100,000 has been spent by the pro-Romney group in South Carolina, whose primary is January 21.

Restore Our Future reported raising over $12 million in the first six months of 2011; it is apparently the best-funded of the new breed of PACs, and has received a few seven-figure donations. Not so well known is a second organization that hopped on the Romney bandwagon, Citizens for a Working America Inc.

The group spent $475,000 on a Christmas Eve ad buy praising the candidate.

The group initially supported Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota but changed course shortly before the big ad buy.

The Center traced an address in an FEC filing for Citizens Inc. to the office of JSN Associates in Dayton, Ohio. The “JSN” is James S. Nathanson, who said Monday the group is “very definitely pro-Romney.” He would not say who the group’s donors are.

A previous incarnation of the group met with some controversy when it accepted a single $255,000 donation in 2010 from a Virginia consulting group called “New Models.” Questions were raised as to whether the group was being used as a pass-through for unnamed donors.

A super PAC supporting Perry, “Make Us Great Again,” spent all of its $3.7 million on ads backing the Texas governor.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman enjoyed the support of “Our Destiny PAC” which spent $1.9 million for ads in New Hampshire, where he opted to compete first rather than Iowa.

Two groups supporting Gingrich ponied up just over $900,000 for TV spots. The bulk of the pro-Gingrich spending was done by “Winning Our Future,” a super PAC that was just started last month.

A surging Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, enjoyed $631,000 in supportive spending by outside groups.

“Priorities USA,” a super PAC supporting President Obama, was also active, spending a little more than $306,000 on advertising opposing Romney.

And “Endorse Liberty Inc.,” a new super PAC embracing Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, spent more than $448,000, most of that on Internet advertising. It also listed one of the more unusual expenditures of the 2012 campaign — $2,000 on “costumes and makeup.”

Peter Stone contributed to this report.

Reprinted by Permission © 2011, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.