DeMint continues sounding alarm about NLRB's attempted Boeing Coup d'état

DeMint continues sounding alarm about NLRB's attempted Boeing Coup d'état

South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint takes on the NLRB again his Human Events column: Like so many federal programs, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has expanded its mission far beyond its original purpose in order to wage ideological battles on the taxpayers’ dime. The NLRB was never meant to micromanage where companies can locate or how many products they can manufacture, as the NLRB under the Obama administration is currently seeking to do. To stop it, Congress should exercise its power of the purse to return the board to its original mission. The NLRB was originally established to oversee union elections and investigate violations of federal labor laws. These days it’s doing less of that than ever. In 1980, the NLRB conducted 8,531 union elections around the country, with a budget of $108 million. In 2009, it oversaw only 1,704 union elections, with a budget of $261 million. Union membership has plummeted by more than 40% since the 1980s. The rapid collapse of organized labor in America’s private sector has reduced the need for union elections—and thus, the NLRB itself—by 80% over the last three decades. Yet its budget—adjusted for inflation—remains essentially unchanged. Hence the board’s recent drift into freelance assaults on economic freedom: While 20% of its budget may be needed to perform its real job, the board seems to be misusing the other 80% for ideological mischief. The current NLRB is expanding its mission far beyond the original intent. Consider what Craig Becker, an NLRB appointee who was rejected by the Senate and then recess-appointed by President Obama, has said. “Just as U.S. citizens cannot opt against having a congressman, workers should not be able to choose against having a union as theirmonopoly-bargaining agent.” Not only has the NLRB launched an unprecedented attack on right-to-work states and job creators, it is now actively silencing nonunion workers in order to give unions a leg up in its legal case against The Boeing Company. This branch of the federal government, charged with protecting workers' rights, is suing a company on behalf of workers who are not in danger of losing their jobs, while refusing to listen to the concerns of three workers whose jobs actually are threatened by the NLRB's own actions. And the NLRB is now suing two states, Arizona and South Dakota, in an effort to overturn democratically passed laws that protect a worker's right to a secret ballot in those states. The NLRB is actually taking the stance that union bosses should be able to force workers to sign cards in public to join a union, a practice known as "card check," instead of making the decision in private without fear of intimidation. This is not enforcement—this is extremism.

Right To Work freedom = Prosperity

Right To Work freedom strongly linked to economic prosperity explains Vincent Vernuccio in his Townhall post: The NLRB’s complaint is in fact a back-handed compliment to right-to-work laws, because it is based on the assumption that right-to-work laws help attract businesses. The preponderance of the evidence favors that position. As Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore recently noted in the Wall Street Journal, from 2000 to 2009 right-to-work states “grew faster in nearly every respect than their union-shop counterparts: 54.6% versus 41.1% in gross state product, 53.3% versus 40.6% in personal income, 11.9% versus 6.1% in population, and 4.1% versus -0.6% in payrolls.” A recent analysis by the office of Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) shows that right-to-work states created 1.3 million more jobs in the private sector, had 3.5 percent faster income growth, and 46 percent higher business growth than forced union states between 1993 and 2009. And, according to a recent National Right to Work Committee analysis of Department of Labor data, over the past 10 years, the top five states in creating new jobs are right-to-work states, while the bottom five are forced unionism states. Workers in right-to-work states also have more disposable income than those in forced unionism states. In right-to-work states, unions must demonstrate to workers that their service has value or they will refuse to join. As in other areas of the economy, competition makes providers of goods and services—in this case the representation services of labor organizations—more efficient and responsive.

16 attorneys general join NLRB-Boeing South Carolina employees; NRTW to file appeal for 3 workers denied voice in lawsuit

Sixteen state attorney generals try to stand-up to the Obama NLRB attempt to trample states' rights hours after the NLRB rejected efforts by Boeing employees to be heard.  From Associated Press reporter Meg Kinnard: COLUMBIA -- Attorneys general from South Carolina and 15 other states Thursday weighed in on a lawsuit filed by the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that its complaint against Boeing for building an assembly plant in North Charleston after a strike by Washington state workers hurts states' abilities to keep manufacturing jobs. Alan Wilson and Greg Abbott, the attorneys general in South Carolina and Texas, respectively, asserted in a brief that "the NLRB's proposed action will harm the interests of the very unionized workers whom the general counsel's Complaint seeks to protect." "State policymakers should be free to choose to enact right-to-work laws -- or to choose not to enact them -- without worrying about retaliation from the NLRB," the two officials wrote. "It is logical that some employers will simply avoid creating new jobs or facilities in non-right-to-work States in the first place." The brief also was signed by attorneys general in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming. It points out that the attorneys general represent right-to-work and unionized states, although only two of the signers -- Colorado and Michigan -- fall into the latter category. South Carolina is a right-to-work state where individual employees can join unions voluntarily, but unions cannot force membership across entire worksites.

Governor Snyder – Pass Right to Work Law!

Governor Snyder – Pass Right to Work Law!

Could worker freedom from union compulsion come to Michigan?  It looks like only Republicans can stop it: Click image to contact Sen. Randy Richardville (R-MI 17th District) ANN ARBOR, Mich. -- Republicans in Gov. Rick Snyder's own backyard are urging the GOP chief executive, state Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, and other area legislators to support enactment of a state Right to Work law that would protect employees from being forced to join or pay dues to a labor union as a condition of employment. The Washtenaw County Republican Executive Committee Thursday night -- by vote -- adopted a resolution proposed by the Willow Run Tea Party Caucus saying a Right to Work law will "guarantee individual freedom of choice and help attract and create new jobs in Michigan." "No person (should) be required as a condition of obtaining or continuing public-sector or private-sector employment to: resign or refrain from membership in, voluntary affiliation with, or voluntary financial support of, a labor organization, (or) become or remain a member of a labor organization, or pay any dues, fees, assessments, or other charges of any kind or amount...to a labor organization," the resolution said. Judy McCoy, a member of the GOP committee, said Right to Work legislation "is a civil rights law that will protect employees from job discrimination on the basis of union membership or financial support. No employee should be discriminated against and fired for choosing to join or support a union, or for choosing not to. Every person should be free to choose either way without fearing loss of their job." "With overwhelming Republican majorities in both houses, and a Republican in the governor's office, the only people in Lansing who can prevent Michigan from passing a Right to Work law are, obviously, Republicans," McCoy said.

Taxpayers to Realize More Losses on GM Bailout

Taxpayers to Realize More Losses on GM Bailout

Meanwhile, United Autoworkers Union Bosses Pocket $3.4 Billion (Source: May 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) In late 2008, GOP President George W. Bush "loaned" a total of $19.4 billion in federal taxpayers' money to the Big Labor-controlled General Motors Corporation (GM). Mr. Bush assured taxpayers they would get their money back. But by the spring of 2009, we learned we would never get back any of the money Mr. Bush had handed over to GM shortly before he left office. His successor as President, Democrat Barack Obama, announced GM would never have to settle up with taxpayers. President Obama simultaneously earmarked an additional $30 billion in taxpayers' money to by-then bankrupt GM. In exchange, taxpayers got a 61% stake in the money-losing company. Echoing Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama and his advisors insisted that, when the government eventually sold off its whole stake in GM, taxpayers would get the entire $30 billion back, and perhaps even reap a profit. Just last August, the President said it again. He told a CNBC interviewer: "We expect taxpayers will get back all the money my Administration has invested in GM." 'Government Officials Are Willing to Take the Loss'