Right to Work Battles to Rein in Obama NLRB

Right to Work Battles to Rein in Obama NLRB

Mark Mix: President Barack Obama is jeopardizing the very constitutional balance of the United States in order to pay off his union benefactors. But Right to Work officers and supporters are fighting back. Credit: Fox News Legislative Challenge to 'Ambush' Election Scheme Now Pending (source: National Right To Work Committee March 2012 Newsletter) On Capitol Hill, in federal court, and at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Right to Work proponents are now helping spearhead efforts to stop the Obama Administration and Big Labor from dragooning hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of additional workers into forced-dues-paying ranks every year. President Barack Obama instigated his latest showdown with Right to Work proponents on January 4, when he installed three new members on the five-member NLRB through "recess appointments," despite the fact that the U.S. Senate was manifestly not in recess. "The phony 'recess' appointments to the NLRB that President Obama made at the beginning of this year illegally circumvented at least two sections of the U.S. Constitution," charged National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix. "First, Article II, Section 2 grants to the chief executive the power to appoint 'officers of the United States,' but only 'by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.' "The Constitution makes it clear that only in cases when 'vacancies happen during recesses of the Senate' may the President make temporary 'recess' appointments to offices that normally require confirmation by Congress's upper chamber." President Claims Constitutional Definition of 'Recess' Can't Be Used to Limit His Power "Second, Mr. Obama and his Justice Department have attempted to justify his so-called 'recess' appointments by effectively asserting that it is the President's prerogative to declare that the Senate is in recess at any moment when the chamber is not actually conducting business," Mr. Mix continued. "But the constitutional definition of 'recess' in Article I, Section 5 contradicts this theory. That's why the White House is now contending this provision can't be used to restrict the President's appointment power."
Presidential Power Abused at Big Labor's Behest

Presidential Power Abused at Big Labor's Behest

Right to Work Fights Back Against 'Illegal' NLRB Appointments (source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President has the power to appoint "officers of the United States," but only "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." The Constitution makes it clear that only in cases when "vacancies . . . happen during recesses of the Senate" may the President make temporary "recess" appointments to offices that normally require confirmation by Congress's upper chamber. Unfortunately, in his eagerness to please union officials Inside the D.C. Beltway, a tiny but crucial constituency for his re-election bid this year, Democratic President Barack Obama is now seeking to render the Constitution's "advice and consent" requirement for executive appointments effectively meaningless. Early this January, the Senate was not in recess. For several weeks starting last December 20, the Senate was instead in a "pro forma" session during which it did not meet every day, but did periodically conduct business under "unanimous consent" agreements. No one can reasonably argue that this "pro forma" session was tantamount to a recess. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that neither the House nor the Senate may over the course of a Congress "adjourn for more than three days" without "the consent of the other." A La Humpty Dumpty, Mr. Obama Insists 'Recess' Means Whatever He Says It Means As syndicated columnist Michael Barone has explained: "The House did not consent to the adjournment of the Senate this year, so there is no recess, and hence no constitutional authority to make recess appointments."
Presidential Power Abused at Big Labor's Behest

Presidential Power Abused at Big Labor's Behest

Right to Work Fights Back Against 'Illegal' NLRB Appointments (source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President has the power to appoint "officers of the United States," but only "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." The Constitution makes it clear that only in cases when "vacancies . . . happen during recesses of the Senate" may the President make temporary "recess" appointments to offices that normally require confirmation by Congress's upper chamber. Unfortunately, in his eagerness to please union officials Inside the D.C. Beltway, a tiny but crucial constituency for his re-election bid this year, Democratic President Barack Obama is now seeking to render the Constitution's "advice and consent" requirement for executive appointments effectively meaningless. Early this January, the Senate was not in recess. For several weeks starting last December 20, the Senate was instead in a "pro forma" session during which it did not meet every day, but did periodically conduct business under "unanimous consent" agreements. No one can reasonably argue that this "pro forma" session was tantamount to a recess. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that neither the House nor the Senate may over the course of a Congress "adjourn for more than three days" without "the consent of the other." A La Humpty Dumpty, Mr. Obama Insists 'Recess' Means Whatever He Says It Means As syndicated columnist Michael Barone has explained: "The House did not consent to the adjournment of the Senate this year, so there is no recess, and hence no constitutional authority to make recess appointments."
Judge Rubberstamps Obama’s NLRB Dictate, Sidesteps Constitutionality Question Regarding Obama Illegal NLRB Appointments

Judge Rubberstamps Obama’s NLRB Dictate, Sidesteps Constitutionality Question Regarding Obama Illegal NLRB Appointments

From the The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation release: Federal Court Rubberstamps Obama NLRB Rule to Push More Workers into Union Ranks National Right to Work Foundation fights Labor Board’s decision to promote monopoly unionism in virtually every workplace in Amerrica Washington, DC (March 2, 2012) – Today, a federal judge upheld the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) power to enforce its controversial new rule requiring virtually every employer in the country to post biased information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices. The judge ruled that, if an employer fails to post the notice, it can be found to have committed an unfair labor practice and that fact can be used as evidence of “anti-union animus” in other cases in which an employer is accused of violating federal labor law. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in conjunction with the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) filed the lawsuit challenging the notice posting rules with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation, had the following statement in the wake of the judge’s ruling: “It is unfortunate that the court rubberstamped the Obama NLRB’s rule, giving union bosses another tool to push workers into forced union dues ranks, and threatening employers if they don’t display biased pro-compulsory unionism propaganda on their property.
SEIU Rigs Card Check Vote

SEIU Rigs Card Check Vote

From The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation release: SEIU and Hospital Officials Hit With Federal Charges for Rigging Union Card Check 'Vote' Union organizers enter into corrupt agreement with hospital to force healthcare workers into union ranks using coercive card check tactics Orange, California (February 13, 2012) – A healthcare worker has filed federal charges against a major healthcare union and hospital officials for illegally rigging a union organizing "vote" and then forcing workers to accept an unwanted union in the workplace. With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, Marlene Felter of Costa Mesa filed the charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Healthcare Workers West union officials and Chapman Medical Center management entered into a backroom deal known as a so-called "neutrality agreement" designed to grease the skids for workers to be forced into union ranks. In the agreement, company officials granted union operatives access to company facilities to conduct a coercive "card check" organizing campaign, and waived the right to have a federally-supervised secret ballot election to determine whether employees wished to be unionized. Union organizers frequently use "card check" organizing tactics to bribe, browbeat, or cajole workers into forced-union-dues payments against their will.
Obama NLRB Still 'Screwing Up the U.S. Economy'

Obama NLRB Still 'Screwing Up the U.S. Economy'

Pro-Right to Work Congressman Darrell Issa wants to know more about why the Boeing complaint was filed. Credit: www.businesspundit.com House Oversight Chairman Seeks Answers From Board's Top Lawyer (Source:  January 2012 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) The legal blitz launched against Boeing and its Palmetto State employees last spring by Lafe Solomon, the President Obama-appointed acting general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), is now over. Unfortunately, the grave threat to American employees' Right to Work stemming from this case is unabated. Last April 20, Mr. Solomon, the board's top lawyer, asked an NLRB administrative law judge to block Boeing from initiating a second Dreamliner 787 aircraft production line in Right to Work South Carolina. Mr. Solomon's case was built on a complaint filed by International Association of Machinists (IAM/AFL-CIO) union bosses. Employees in Right to Work States Are Mr. Solomon's Principal Targets Boeing had no right, union officials claimed, to expand production in a Right to Work state so as to cut the cost to customers, employees and shareholders of the disruptive strikes that the union brass had repeatedly instigated at the company's west coast facilities over the years.