2013: Schweikert Voted To Block The National Labor Relations Board From Issuing Rules, Enforcing Its Decisions, Or Hiring New Staff Until January 2014, Unless The Legal Validity Of Its Board Members' Appointments Was Resolved. In April 2013, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have "prohibit[ed] activities of the National Labor Relations Board that require a quorum of members, including issuing rules, enforcing decisions or appointing personnel, until the Senate confirms a full five-member board, the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the recess appointments to the board made in January 2012, or the end of the first session of the 113th Congress." The vote was on final passage. The House approved the bill by a vote of 219 to 209. As of October 2013, the Senate had not acted on the bill. [House Vote 101, 4/12/13; Congressional Quarterly, 4/12/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1120]
2010: Supreme Court Ruled That NLRB Cannot Function Without A Quorum Of Three Members. According to the Associated Press, "More than 500 decisions by the leading federal agency that referees disputes between labor and management will have to be reopened after the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the five-member board had operated illegally when its membership dwindled to two. [. . .] Allowing two members to run the agency because Congress and the White House can't agree on new members would be letting the board 'create a tail that would not only wag the dog, but would continue to wag after the dog has died,' Stevens said. The decision means that more than 500 of employee-employer cases decided by the NLRB while its membership had dropped to two must now be reopened by the board, which currently has four members. [. . .] But it has operated with only two members for more than two years because Democrats refused to confirm President George W. Bush's nominees because of complaints that they were pro-business. Republicans then blocked President Barack Obama's nominees, complaining that some of them favor union interests. Before the board dwindled to two members, the three-member board delegated the entire group's authority to the chairwoman, Democrat Wilma Liebman, and Republican board member Peter Schaumber, who made more than 500 decisions." [Associated Press, 6/17/10]
2012: Obama Recess Appointed Three Members Of The NLRB In Order For The Board To Continue To Have A Quorum. According to Bloomberg Law, "Obama made his recess appointments of board members Sharon Block (D), Terence F. Flynn (R), and Richard F. Griffin (D) on Jan. 4, 2012 [. . .] Obama announced the recess appointments of the board members in January 2012 at the same time he recess appointed Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Avoiding a loss of an NLRB quorum that would have resulted from the expiration of a recess appointment of former Member Craig Becker (D), the president said: 'The American people deserve to have qualified public servants fighting for them every day--whether it is to enforce new consumer protections or uphold the rights of working Americans.'" [Bloomberg Law, 1/25/13]
D.C. Circuit Court Ruled That Obama's NLRB Recess Appointments Were Invalid Because The Senate Was Not In Recess At The Time. According to Bloomberg Law, "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held Jan. 25 that President Obama's recess appointments of three members to the National Labor Relations Board were invalid and the board lacked a valid quorum to support an unfair labor practice order against a Washington bottling firm (Noel Canning Div. of Noel Corp. v. NLRB, D.C. Cir., No. 12-1115, 1/25/13). Writing for the court, Judge David B. Sentelle said the recess appointment power of the president described in the U.S. Constitution applied only during an 'intersession' recess of the Senate, not during intrasession adjournments of the congressional body." [Bloomberg Law, 1/25/13]
Supreme Court Agreed To Hear Obama Administration's Appeal Of D.C. Circuit Court's NLRB Decision. According to Politico, "The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether it was constitutional for President Barack Obama to have made a series of recess appointments last year during short breaks in which the Senate claimed not to be in recess. The case the court will take up, focusing on Obama's three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, will likely be argued in the fall. [. . .] The case centers on appointments Obama made in January 2012, the day after the 112th Congress officially convened, then immediately took a three-week break. During those three weeks, Congress met every few days for brief pro forma sessions. Plaintiffs in the case argued that because Congress had formally met during that period, the break was not actually a recess. [. . .] The White House in March asked the Supreme Court to decide the issue. In its petition to the court, the administration said the ruling could invalidate 'hundreds of recess appointments made by presidents since early in the Nation's history.'" [Politico, 6/24/13]
Obama Had Re-Nominated Two Of His Contested NLRB Recess Appointees, But Senate Republicans Had Filibustered Those Nominations. According to CQ Weekly, "Senators averted a threatened rules change to ban filibusters on executive branch nominations when a group of Republicans led by John McCain of Arizona agreed to confirm a pair of replacement nominees offered by President Barack Obama for vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board. The deal, announced July 16, at least temporarily resolved a standoff that could have led to the most significant procedural change since 1975, when the Senate reduced the number of votes needed to cut off debate from 67 to 60. Majority Leader Harry Reid's threat to push through the rules change with 51 votes, a gambit dubbed the 'nuclear option,' prompted senators to convene an unusual three-and-a-half-hour joint caucus in the Old Senate Chamber of the Capitol the evening of July 15. The deal that took shape the next day allowed the chamber to proceed to a series of votes on stalled Obama administration nominees [. . .] Under the deal, Democrats agreed to withdraw the nominations of current Democratic NLRB members Sharon Block and Richard F. Griffin Jr., whose recess appointments were deemed unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as well as the 3rd and 4th Circuit Courts. They were replaced by former AFL-CIO general counsel Nancy Schiffer and Kent Hirozawa, current NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce's chief counsel. In addition, the replacement for Block, whose term expires next year, would effectively be immunized from a filibuster at that point." [CQ Weekly, 7/21/13]
AFL-CIO Opposed Bill, Said It Would Put NLRB "Out Of Business." According to a release by the AFL-CIO, "House Republican leadership rammed through a bill (H.R. 1120) earlier today that would effectively put the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) out of business. The NLRB enforces rules established under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protects the rights of workers to form unions, bargain collectively and have a voice on the job. All Democrats, along with 10 Republicans [. . .]voted to stop this blatant attack on workers' rights. In the end, after much arm-twisting by Republican leadership, the measure squeaked by on a vote of 219-209." [AFL-CIO Release, 4/12/13]
Republicans Said Bill Would Force NLRB To "Stop Exacerbating A Crisis. " According to the Washington Examiner, "Republicans pushed the bill to ensure that the NLRB waits until the court rules before it makes any further actions. House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline, R-Minn., said in a statement: 'The president's unprecedented recess appointment scheme has crippled the work of the board. Roughly 600 decisions are now constitutionally suspect and that number grows with each new decision. Workers, employers, and unions are in limbo. Despite claims to the contrary, the overwhelming majority of business before the NLRB is addressed by regional offices and will continue under this proposal. Today the House has simply instructed the board to stop exacerbating a crisis that is harming the American workforce.'" [Washington Examiner, 4/12/13]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 113th Congress Scorecard]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Expanding The Actions The National Labor Relations Board Can Take. In April 2013, Schweikert voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly, the "motion to recommit the bill to the House Education and Workforce Committee and report it back immediately with an amendment that would allow the National Labor Relations Board to act on a matter involving veterans fired from a job in violation of the National Labor Relations Act or for being elected as a collective bargaining representative. It also would allow the NLRB to consider violations regarding outsourcing of jobs, child labor laws and unsafe working conditions as well as violations by foreign-owned firms against the rights of U.S. workers." The vote was on the motion to recommit. The House rejected the motion by a vote of 197 to 229. [House Vote 100, 4/12/13; Congressional Quarterly, 4/12/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1120]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Eliminating The NLRB. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate The NLRB As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for preventing the NLRB's General Counsel from prosecuting in front of the board. According to the Republican Study Committee, the budget proposes to "Eliminate the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)[.] The Department of Justice (DOJ) already oversees a wide variety of civil, criminal, and administrative issues, including anti-trust and voting rights. DOJ is certainly capable of handling claims of unfair labor practices and could do so without the pro-big-labor bias and partisanship endemic to the NLRB. Eliminating the NLRB beginning in FY 2016 would save $274 million per year.." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate The National Labor Relations Board And Moving Its Labor Law Enforcement Authority To The Department Of Justice. In April 2014, Schweikert voted for the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution for fiscal years 2015 to 2024. According to the Republican Study Committee's budget, "Eliminate the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Department of Justice (DOJ) already oversees a wide variety of civil, criminal, and administrative issues, including anti-trust, voting rights, and major mergers and acquisitions. DOJ is certainly capable of handling claims of unfair labor practices, and could do so without the pro-big-labor bias and partisanship endemic to the NLRB. Eliminating the NLRB beginning in FY2015 could save $27 4 million per year." The House considered the RSC budget as a substitute amendment to House Republicans' FY 2015 budget resolution; the amendment was rejected by a vote of 133 to 291. [House Vote 175, 4/10/14; Republican Study Committee, 4/7/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 615; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate The National Labor Relations Board. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support eliminating the National Labor Relations Board, as part of the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023. According to the Republican Study Committee, the budget would "Eliminate the National Labor Relations Board." The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
2021: Schweikert Voted Against Expanding Enforcement From The National Labor Relations Board. In March 2021, Schweikert voted against the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 which would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "expand enforcement authorities of the National Labor Relations Board." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 225-206. The Senate did not take substantive action on the bill. [House Vote 70, 3/9/21; Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21; Congressional Actions, H.R. 842]
The Bill Would Have Enforced National Labor Relations Board Orders And Imposed Several Civil Monetary Penalties, Including Fees Up To $50K Against Employers Who Punish Organized Labor. According to Congressional Quarterly, "authorize the NLRB to enforce any orders it issues and to impose a number of civil monetary penalties, including penalties of up to $50,000 against employers who prevent or punish organizing activities by employees." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21]
H.R. 842 Would Amplify Union Strength By Including Penalties For Union Election Interference Of Employers And Worker's Rights Violations, And Facilitating Initial Collective Bargaining Agreements. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure would make numerous changes to the National Labor Relations Act aimed at bolstering union strength, including adding penalties for employees that violate worker rights under the law, prohibiting employer interference in union elections, and increasing facilitation of initial collective bargaining agreements." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/8/21]
Advocates Argued That Requiring Fees From Employers That Violate Labor Laws During An Organizing Campaign Would Be Critical To Facilitating The Formation Of A Union. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Among the bill's provisions is one that supporters consider crucial to making it easier to form a union: the ability to require financial payments from employers that break labor laws during an organizing campaign. Another provision related to organizing campaigns would ban company practices to discourage employees from joining a union." [Congressional Quarterly, 5/18/21]
The Bill Would Impose Monetary Penalties For Employers And Executives, Including Corporate Directors And Company Officers, That Violate Employees' Rights. According to NPR, "It would establish monetary penalties for companies and executives that violate workers' rights. Corporate directors and other officers of the company could also be held liable." [NPR, 3/9/21]
The Bill Would Have Required The NLRB To Seek Temporary Injections Against Employers Charged For Enacting Unfair Labor Practices And Permitted Workers To Sue If The Board Failed To Seek The Injunctions. According to Congressional Quarterly, "require the NLRB to seek temporary injunctions against employers charged with engaging in unfair labor practices and allow employees to bring civil action if the board fails to seek an injunction." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21]
The Bill Would Have Modified The Definitions Of "Employee" And "Supervisor" To Narrow The Categorization Of Independent Contractors And Supervisors. According to Congressional Quarterly, "modify definitions of 'employee' and 'supervisor,' particularly to narrow the classification of independent contractors and supervisors, two categories of employees not eligible for collective bargaining." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/9/21]
2017: Schweikert Voted For Cutting NLRB Funding By $99 Million. In September 2017, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "decrease[d] the salaries and expenses of the National Labor Relations Board by $99 million and would transfer the savings to the spending reduction account." The underlying legislation was a legislative vehicle for an FY 2018 Omnibus appropriations bill. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 175 to 241. [House Vote 510, 9/13/17; Congressional Quarterly, 9/13/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 417; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3354]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Override President Biden's Veto Of A Resolution That Disapproved A National Labor Relations Board Joint Employer Status Rule. In January 2024, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for "passage over President Joe Biden's veto of the joint resolution (H J Res 98) disapproving a National Labor Relations Board joint-employer status rule." The vote was on passage. The House rejected the veto override by a vote of 214 to 191. [House Vote 185, 5/7/24; Congressional Quarterly, 5/7/24; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 98]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Disapprove A National Labor Relations Board Joint Employer Status Rule That Expanded The Definition Of Joint Employers For Union Bargaining Purposes. In January 2024, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "joint resolution that would provide for congressional disapproval of the October 2023 National Labor Relations Board rule that defines a joint employer to include any entity that possesses the authority to determine the essential employment terms and conditions of another employer's employees, regardless of whether it actually exercises such authority. The rule requires a joint employer to bargain with its employees' union representative with respect to any employment term or condition it possesses the authority to control. Under the provisions of the joint resolution, the October 2023 NLRB rule would have no force or effect." The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 206 to 177, thus it was sent to the Senate. [House Vote 10, 1/12/24; Congressional Quarterly, 1/12/24; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 98]
2024: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Disapprove A National Labor Relations Board Joint Employer Status Rule. In January 2024, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "adoption of the rule (H Res 947) that would provide for House floor consideration of the [...] joint resolution (HJ Res 98) that would provide for congressional disapproval of a National Labor Relations Board joint employer status rule [...] The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on each bill." The vote was on the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 213 to 200. [House Vote 5, 1/10/24; Congressional Quarterly, 1/10/24; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 947; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 98]
2024: Schweikert Effectively Voted To Disapprove A National Labor Relations Board Joint Employer Status Rule. In January 2024, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted for the "motion to order the previous question (thus ending debate and possibility of amendment) on the rule (H Res 947) that would provide for House floor consideration of the [...] joint resolution (HJ Res 98) that would provide for congressional disapproval of a National Labor Relations Board joint employer status rule [...] The rule would provide for up to one hour of debate on each bill. The vote was on the previous question. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 213 to 200. [House Vote 2, 1/10/24; Congressional Quarterly, 1/10/24; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 947; Congressional Actions, H.J. Res. 98]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Repeal The NLRB's General Counsel From Prosecuting Before The NLRB As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for eliminating the NLRB. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The proposal also repeals the ability of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board to prosecute before the board." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Overturn The National Labor Relations Board's Rule Modifying Its Union Representation Election Procedures To Reduce Delays And Increase Transparency. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for a joint resolution that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for congressional disapproval and nullification of the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] rule relating to case representation procedures," which, a separate Congressional Quarterly article explains, is "the process through which workers vote to unionize." According to the NLRB, "The Final Rule will streamline Board procedures, increase transparency and uniformity across regions, eliminate or reduce unnecessary litigation, duplication and delay, and update the Board's rules on documents and communications in light of modern communications technology." The House adopted the joint resolution by a vote of 232 to 186. The resolution was then sent to the president, but it was then vetoed. The Senate subsequently tabled the veto message. [House Vote 128, 3/19/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/4/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/13/15; National Labor Relations Board, 12/11/14; Congressional Actions, S. J. Res. 8]
A "Representation" Case Is One Where The NLRB Investigates A Petition For Union Representation, Determines If A Vote Should Be Held On Representation, And If So, Holds An Election. According to the NLRB, "Representation petitions are filed by employees, unions and employers seeking to have the NLRB conduct an election to determine if employees wish to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining with their employer. The Board will investigate these petitions to determine if an election should be conducted and will direct an election, if appropriate. In most instances, parties agree on the voting unit and other issues. If parties do not agree, the NLRB's regional office holds a pre-election hearing to determine whether an election should be conducted. The NLRB's regional office conducts the election and, if necessary, holds a post-election hearing to resolve challenges to voters' eligibility and objections to the conduct of the election or conduct affecting the results of the election. Parties can seek Board review of regional determinations made before and after the election." [National Labor Relations Board, 12/11/14]
Rule Aimed To Speed Up Election Process By Imposing A Speedier Pre-Election Hearing Timetable, Requiring That Employers State Their Positions The Day Before That Hearing, And Postponing Consideration Of Worker Eligibility Issues Until After Any Election Has Occurred. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In an effort to expedite the election process, the final rule directs the NLRB regional director to set the pre-election hearing to begin eight days after the hearing notice is served. The non-petitioning parties (e.g., the employer) are required to respond to the petition for union representation and state their positions the day before the pre-election hearing opens. At the opening of the hearing, the petitioner must respond to the issues raised by the employer. Parties would not be allowed to litigate on issues inconsistent with their positions as represented for the pre-election hearing; only litigation necessary to determine whether it is appropriate to conduct an election would be allowed. Issues regarding the eligibility of certain workers to vote on unionization would be determined after the vote, and only if the numbers involved could change the outcome of the election." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/13/15]
If The NLRB Orders An Election To Occur, The Rule Required Employers To Provide The Voting Employees' Personal Contact Information To The NLRB And Union Organizers Within Two Business Days. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The rule generally requires employers to share more information about their employees with the NLRB and union organizers. As part of its Statement of Position submitted before the pre-election hearing, the employer must provide a list of prospective voters with their job classifications, shifts and work locations. It must also include personal phone numbers and email addresses (if available to the employer) of employees on the voting list; the list must be submitted within two business days of the NLRB regional director's approval of an election." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/13/15]
If Enacted, A Congressional Disapproval Resolution Blocks The Targeted Rule, Or Any Substantially Similar Rule, From Taking Effect. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Congressional Review Act of 1996 (CRA; PL 104-121) established a process through which Congress can overturn regulations issued by federal agencies by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval. If both chambers submit disapproval resolutions within 60 session days (exclusive of recess periods) after Congress receives the rule, both chambers may consider the disapproval resolution under an expedited procedure. [...] If a disapproval resolution is enacted, it prevents the rule from taking effect and the agency is prohibited from issuing a substantially similar rule without subsequent statutory authorization. If a rule is disapproved after going into effect, it is treated as though it never took effect. If the president vetoes a disapproval resolution, the rule may not take effect for 30 session days thereafter, unless either the House or Senate votes to sustain the veto." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/13/15]
Rule Opponents Argued It Is Unnecessary And Allows Unions To Quickly Hold An Election Before Employers Can Effectively Respond Or Challenge The Union Organizing Effort. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Business groups oppose the NLRB final rule, arguing that it allows unions to rush in and hold an election with little or no notice, and that it prevents employers from having sufficient time to challenge and appeal petitions to form a union. Republicans and industry groups say the NLRB has not demonstrated that there is any actual problem with current election procedures." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/13/15]
Rule Opponents Referred To The Rule As The "Ambush Election" Rule. According to The Hill, "The GOP introduced legislation earlier this year that would have struck down what Republicans refer to as the so-called "ambush election" rule." [The Hill, 5/4/15]
Rule Opponents Argued Information Sharing Provisions Require Them To Violate Employee Privacy. According to Congressional Quarterly, "They also oppose employers having to share employee contact information with union organizers unless the employees opt into that sharing, saying to do so violates employee privacy." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/13/15]
Rule Supporters Argued Rule Needed Because Employers Have Used Pre-Election Challenges And Allegedly Frivolous Pre-Election Litigation To Delay Elections. "Unions, meanwhile, say the NLRB rule is needed, given the use of challenges and frivolous legal filings by employers to delay union elections. These delays are a primary reason, both unions and the NLRB say, [sic] create a uniform process that eliminates such litigious behavior." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/13/15]
Rule Supporters Argued Employers Have Unfair Advantage If They Do Not Have To Share Employee Contact Information With Union Organizers. They [unions] also argue that without requiring employers to share employee contact information, employers have an unfair advantage in being able to reach potential voters and argue against unionization." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/13/15]
2020: Schweikert Voted Against The PRO Act, Which Protected Workers' Rights To Unionize. In February 2020, Schweikert voted against a bill that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "expand enforcement authorities of the National Labor Relations Board and modify procedures by which employees may unionize and elect representation under federal labor law. The bill would authorize the NLRB to enforce any orders it issues. It would authorize the board to impose a number of civil monetary penalties, including penalties of up to $50,000 against employers who prevent or punish organizing activities by employees." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 224-194. [House Vote 50, 2/6/20; Congressional Quarterly, 2/6/20; Congressional Actions, H.R.2474]