It is no mystery that our new administration has a different modus operandi from that of the past one. But, when it comes to unions, what do we mean by this? Take the Persuader Rule, for example. The previous administration took active steps that had an effect of-- as the article states--"casting sunlight on the consultants that operate behind the scenes"; these consultants are, the so-called, union busters. The past administration achieved this, by leading active efforts that closed a loophole in the so-called Persuader Rule. The end-result: it closed that loophole by mandating full disclosure of all activities undertaken by these union-busting consultants.
Faced with a new secretary of labor, the fate of the progress achieved so far is, to say the least, uncertain. He is moving to rescind the Persuader Rule, allowing "indirect advice" to go unreported. In light of this new measure we are left with several questions: Will this new measure detrimentally affect our worker's strength and ability to organize? To what extent? Will this measure unfairly strengthen companies, their powers, and union buster(s)?