Bill Cassidy

The employees of those companies would be adversely affected and their businesses could be brought to their knees even though they had nothing to do with the primary.

We don't want employers harassing employees, period, end of story. But nor should it go the other way.

No one should be above the law, despite their mandate under the law to be a neutral arbiter.

The guy making $500 bucks a day doing what he wishes would now be under a more stringent set of guidelines because of the PRO Act.

Scripture says, out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth does speak.

I am concerned that NLRB seems to be putting their thumb on the side of the scale that is headed toward employees seeking to unionize.

The legislation detrimentally affects employee free choice and stifles basic democratic rights to a secret ballot and free debate.

The PRO Acts' sweeping and far-reaching changes will affect every segment of our economy.

PRO Act is not pro-worker, it is pro big union.

We must support all workers, those who want to be in a union and those who do not wish to be.

If they want to unionize, I am for it. Let's do it.

Prior to this Administration and the Biden inflation that has gone up 14 percent since he took office, people had money in their checking account.

Being a right to work state means that these workers have the right and they choose to be in a union. I am supporting that choice.

Forced union dues allow corrupt, ineffective union officials to continue getting paid.

Right to Work does not restrict union organizing in any way.

I understand the Teamsters passed a motion to set up a specific focused Amazon Organizing project last year.

Bargaining allows small businesses and their workers to listen and solve problems together, because workers are the ones who know how to do their jobs the best and make the company more successful.

The legislation detrimentally affects employee free choice and stifles basic democratic rights to a secret ballot and free debate.

The PRO Acts' sweeping and far-reaching changes will affect every segment of our economy.

They vote for a union and it takes 400 days, but because the board is chasing a shiny object and not enforcing this order, that 400 days is allowed to occur, which is not, if you will, an indictment of the employer per se, as much as an…

But it strikes me that doing intermittent and a secondary would be a very a highly effective tool to bring a company to its knees.

The guy making $500 bucks a day doing what he wishes would now be under a more stringent set of guidelines because of the PRO Act.

I am concerned that NLRB seems to be putting their thumb on the side of the scale that is headed toward employees seeking to unionize.

PRO Act is not pro-worker, it is pro big union.

Despite their legal--no one should be above the law, despite their mandate under the law to be a neutral arbiter, you are describing a Board and a General Counsel who are not neutral arbiters.