Article by Brian Preston in "PJMedia":
Illegal
immigrants who take jobs in the United States are not covered by union
regulations or other protections under the federal National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA). This is not surprising, as American laws were not
written to cover those who come to this country illegally.
A
proposed law currently under consideration in the House of
Representatives would change this in drastic and unprecedented ways.
David Williams of the Taxpayer Protection Alliance was first to raise awareness
of the dangers of the Protecting the Right to Organize, or PRO Act.
Under current regulations, workers seeking to unionize can use signed
cards to demonstrate that a clear and commanding majority favor
unionizing. At that point, an employer can either accept the
unionization, or offer workers a secret ballot election. The latter can
prevent coercion by unions and protect workers’ voting privacy. Some
workers who do not want to unionize will sign cards to give their fellow
workers the opportunity to vote. Elections are overseen by the NLRB to
ensure they are fair and free.
The
NLRA bans employers from interfering in collective bargaining. Workers
who believe their collective bargaining rights have been interfered with
can sue and if they win can receive damages and other awards. Illegal
immigrants are not covered and covering them has never been the intent
of the NLRA.
In 2009,
pro-union Democrats introduced the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA),
which unlike what its name implies, would have done away with secret
ballot elections and declared open season for coercing workers into
unionizing whether they wanted to or not. That radical bill failed even
while the Democrats controlled Congress and the White House.
The PRO Act, H.R. 2474,
has now been introduced and its proponents promise it’s a scaled-back
approach to the EFCA – but it’s actually worse than the EFCA. Not only
does the PRO Act leave unionizers free to coerce workers, it would grant
illegal workers protections not even afforded American workers.
How?
It
would make illegal immigrants eligible, for the first time, for back
pay, consequential damages and “an additional amount...two times the
amount of damages awarded.” Illegal immigrants would also be able to sue
the employer in federal court if the NLRB fails to award these remedies
within 60 days.
Currently
employers may fire any workers found to be in the country illegally.
This is to protect our immigration law and American workers and deter
illegal immigration. U.S laws are not intended to cover people who
violate our laws upon entering our sovereign country.
The
outrageous PRO Act also subjects owners and employers to civil
penalties up to $100,000 from accusations by illegal workers. This puts
them in the crosshairs for accusations of firing them over their union
status rather than being in the country illegally. A partisan-controlled
NLRB could use this provision of the PRO Act to destroy a small
business with one ruling favoring an illegal worker – who was never
supposed to be covered by American labor laws in the first place. The
bill’s language is clear:
“...no relief under this subsection shall be denied on the basis that the employee is, or was during the time of relevant employment or during the back pay period, an unauthorized alien as defined in section 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)) or any other provision of Federal law relating to the unlawful employment of aliens.”
It’s right
there. The PRO Act grants unauthorized aliens the ability to weaponize
American courts against American employers. And Democrats unanimously
rejected an amendment that would have required unions to verify an
employee’s legal status before counting them as favoring a union
election.
This insidious
bill challenges the meaning and value of citizenship and tips the scales
in favor of illegal workers. It also favors union bosses, who
overwhelmingly support Democrats with their unions’ money and support,
at a time when union membership continues to decline. No Republican
should support it. Congress should defend citizens, not subject them to
bogus civil suits by people whose first act on American soil is to
violate our sovereignty.
