The Obama administration is asking a federal judge to throw out a challenge brought by ten states against a new labor regulation that will force union busters out of the shadows.
Finalized in April by the Department of Labor, the “Persuader Rule” is under assault in federal court, where several Republican-led states, are seeking an injunction against it.
According to a brief filed last week, the department argued that the state interveners claims should be rejected, and the regulation preserved.
“The public interest would be undermined if the Court were to enjoin a rule that seeks to bring greater transparency to attempts to influence employees’ decisions about whether to organize and bargain collectively,” the filing reads.
The persuader rule clarified a portion of the 1959 Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), which required businesses to inform the public whenever they sought the help of an outside firm to squash an organizing drive.
It specifically closed a loophole in the interpretation of the law that allowed indirect union-busting assistance — such as the supplying of talking points, video materials, and brochures — to go unreported.
According to the AFL-CIO, roughly 82 percent of employers will seek help of an outside firm to thwart an organizing effort.
Texas and nine other states claim that the mandatory disclosures violate the Tenth Amendment by improperly overriding state laws affording protection to attorney-client communications.
“None of this information required to be reported falls within the traditional confines of the attorney-client privilege,” the government shot back in its filing.
DOL attorneys contended that disclosures required by the regulation — the identity of the firm providing assistance, the types of material provided in the campaign, the duration of the services — all exist outside the realm of protected communications.
The court has “repeatedly rejected attempts to extend the traditional protections afforded to privileged attorney-client communications to cover information not traditionally considered privileged, such as the basic fact of legal representation or the name of a client,” DOL stated.
Rather than “commandeer” state law, the persuader rule “only requires covered private entities to disclose information under prescribed circumstances,” the briefing noted, countering the states’ Tenth Amendment arguments.
The lawsuit was initially filed in March by five business groups, including the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). In May, the court allowed Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin to join the plaintiffs in seeking an injunction.
Republican in Congress are working on a parallel track against the persuader rule. A GOP-led House labor subcommittee convened a hearing in April to discuss ways to undermine the regulations. Lawmakers have since put forward H.J. Res. 87 to use their authority under the Congressional Review Act to block implementation of the rule. The legislation was passed out of committee last month.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.