Federal Register/Vol. 76, No. 168/Tuesday, August 30, 2011/Rules and Regulations 54041 on substantial evidence, nor does it management attorneys to the opposite communications, sufficient when the provide a satisfactory explanation for effect that the employees know about Wagner Act was passed, but not now? the choice they have made. They their rights under the Act, but my The union density levels for 1935 and contend that a mandatory notice posting colleagues find these less persuasive. today are roughly the same.185 Why at rule enforceable through Section 8{a)(1) In any event, the partisan opinions a time when the Board champions its is needed because they believe that most and perceptions, although worthy of new Web site and the Acting General employees are unaware of their NLRA consideration, ultimately fail as Counsel continues to encourage the rights and therefore cannot effectively substantial evidence supporting the regional outreach programs initiated by exercise those rights. This belief is Board majority’s initial premise for his predecessor, do my colleagues so based on: (1) Some studies indicating proposing the rule. There remains the readily dismiss the Board’s role in that employees and high school Board’s conclusion that the decline in providing information about rights students about to enter the work force union density provides the missing under the statute we administer? For are generally uninformed about labor factual support. The majority explains that matter, why are the numerous law; (2) an influx of immigrants in the that there was less need for a posting of | employee, labor organizer, and worker labor force who are presumably also information about NLRA rights when advocacy groups whose comments uninformed about labor law; (3) the the union density was higher because profess awareness of these rights unable current low and declining percentage of “friends and family who belonged to to communicate this information to union-represented emplo