U.S. Rep. Gowdy: NLRB continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda thwarting economic recovery

U.S. Rep. Gowdy: NLRB continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda thwarting economic recovery

From U.S. House Education & Workforce Committee press release: NLRB biasis a menaceto business When so many of our fellow citizens are looking for work and America is competing against other countries to land businesses, the National Labor Relations Board continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda thwarting economic recovery and continuing to place our companies at a competitive disadvantage worldwide. Virtually everyone is familiar with the most glaring example of overreach and union pandering, which is the complaint against Boeing. Despite not a single example of job loss and despite not a single worker benefit in Washington State being lost, the NLRB sued Boeing seeking to have it close its South Carolina plant, displace the workers hired, and return the work to Washington State. That is Exhibit A in proving the NLRB has become a sycophant for Big Labor but is by no means the only piece of evidence. Currently, union elections take place on average within 31 days of the filing of an election petition. Additionally, unions are victorious more often than not when there is an election, but that is not good enough. Unions want more, so they persuaded the NLRB to propose sweeping changes to the election process, shifting the balance of power even further toward union seeking employees. By promoting "rush elections," and ruling that elections can take place in as little as 10 days, the board severely limits the opportunity for workers to hear all sides of the issue and make an informed decision. Additionally, employers would have only seven days to retain legal counsel and decipher the complex labyrinth of federal labor law before presenting their case before an NLRB hearing officer. House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline smartly introduced H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, to level the playing field. This legislation requires no union election occur in less than 35 days, thus granting all parties the ability to present their arguments and ensuring workers have the ability to reach an informed decision.

Heritage Foundation: Right to Work Creates Jobs and Choice

James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation confirms what we have known for decades, enacting Right to Work laws create jobs and promote choice for workers: Union contracts frequently require employees to pay union dues or lose their jobs. This forces workers to support the union financially even if the union contract harms them or they oppose the union’s agenda. Several states, including New Hampshire and Indiana, are considering right-to-work laws, which protect workers from being fired for not paying union dues. Unions oppose these laws because they reduce union membership and income. However, the rest of the economy benefits from right-to-work laws. States can and should reduce unemployment by becoming right-to-work states. Right-to-Work Unions often negotiate contracts requiring all workers to pay union dues or lose their jobs, whether or not they support the union. But many workers reject unions. Some do so because union contracts reduce their pay. Others oppose unions’ political agendas: Unions almost exclusively support Democrats, despite 37 percent of their members voting Republican in the last election.[1] To prevent workers from being forced to support unions financially, 22 states have passed right-to-work laws. Such laws prevent companies from firing workers who do not pay union dues. Workers may still pay voluntarily, but unions cannot threaten their jobs if they do not join. Lawmakers in several states, including New Hampshire, Indiana, and Michigan, are considering right-to-work bills. Forced Unionization Is Not an American Value The government should not force workers to pay for unwanted union representation. In a free society, workers alone should make that choice. Right-to-work laws also make good economic sense. They reduce the incentive for union organizers to target companies that treat their workers well. Since unions hurt businesses, less aggressive union organizing attracts investment—and jobs. Lawmakers considering right-to-work proposals should ignore the union movement’s self-interested opposition. Unions could negotiate contracts that apply only to their members—they simply prefer not to. Unions should not be able to force workers to choose between financially supporting them and losing their jobs. Unions Lose Money When Workers Opt Out
Beleaguered Local Cops 'Completely Outnumbered'

Beleaguered Local Cops 'Completely Outnumbered'

In southwestern Washington last month, overpowered police were unable to prevent bat- and ax handle-wielding union toughs from systematically sabotaging a $200 million grain terminal. No arrests were made at the scene. Credit: AP Photo/Don Ryan Bat- and Pipe-Wielding Union Thugs Rampage in Washington State (Source: October 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) For decades, Right to Work advocates have fought to close the judicially created loophole in federal anti-extortion law that exempts threats, vandalism and violence perpetrated to secure so-called "legitimate union objectives," including monopoly-bargaining and forced-dues privileges over employees. In explaining the importance of closing the loophole created 38 years ago in the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial 5-4 Enmons decision, National Right to Work Committee spokesmen and their allies have pointed out, time and again, that local and state law enforcement are often overwhelmed by violent union conspiracies. Just last month, the local police in Longview, Wash., a Columbia River port town, became the latest case in point. At 4:30 AM on September 8, hundreds of International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU/AFL-CIO) militants stormed a new grain terminal at the Port of Longview. Big Labor thugs broke down the gates, overwhelmed six security guards, and then converged on the terminal of EGT, a joint venture of U.S., Japanese, and South Korean companies that has been targeted by ILWU chiefs. A week later, security guard Charlie Cadwell testified before U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton that every ILWU "protester" he saw that night was carrying a baseball bat, lead pipe, garden tool, or other weapon. As the AP reported, Mr. Cadwell told the judge he was first pulled out of his car by one Big Labor zealot, then another swung a metal pipe at him. "I told him," Mr. Cadwell continued, "You have 50 cameras on you, and law enforcement is on its way. He said, '(Expletive) you. We're not here for you; we're here for the train.'" Meanwhile, yet another union militant drove off with his car and eventually ran it into a ditch. Mr. Cadwell said "about 40 to 50 people were throwing rocks at him, and that he was hit between his eyes and in his knee," according to the AP account. 'I Wasn't About' to Stop 'These People From Doing Whatever It Is They Were Going to Do' The ILWU lawbreakers in Washington State evidently feel no more compunction about using threats and violence against police than they do about assaulting and terrorizing security guards.