Lafe Solomon 'Did What IAM Bosses Told Him To'

Lafe Solomon 'Did What IAM Bosses Told Him To'

E-mails Reveal Why Top NLRB Lawyer 'Screwed up the U.S. Economy' Internal NLRB e-mails show Lafe Solomon (pictured) was disinclined this March to target Boeing for expanding production in Right to Work South Carolina. Then IAM union chiefs, led by Tom Buffenbarger, apparently got to him. Credit: AP/Bruce Smith (Source:  November-December 2011 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) This April 20, Acting National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Lafe Solomon ignited a public-policy firestorm by filing a complaint against Boeing for initiating a second Dreamliner 787 aircraft production line in Right to Work South Carolina. In several public statements, Boeing executives had made no bones about the fact that their decision to expand in a Right to Work state was prompted largely by their desire to avoid or at least mitigate multi-billion-dollar revenue losses stemming from disruptive strikes. Agreeing with International Association of Machinists (IAM/AFL-CIO) union kingpins who had repeatedly ordered employees at Boeing's west coast facilities out on strike, Mr. Solomon claimed these statements showed Boeing was motivated by "anti-union animus." Consequently, the South Carolina expansion was illegal, declared Mr. Solomon. Mr. Solomon's complaint asked an NLRB administrative law judge to stop Boeing's South Carolina production. Former Clinton-Appointed NLRB Chairman: Boeing Complaint Didn't 'Make Sense'
Obama Bureaucrats Bolster Monopolistic Unionism

Obama Bureaucrats Bolster Monopolistic Unionism

Labor Board Chipping Away at 'Choice to Remain Unrepresented' Craig Becker has publicly lamented the fact that U.S. labor law does not "mandate" union monopoly bargaining. Credit: www.uncoverage.net (Source:  November-December 2011 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) In his writings for academic and "labor studies" journals over the years, union lawyer Craig Becker has repeatedly bemoaned the fact that U.S. labor law "does not," as he once bluntly explained, "require employees in a plant to select a bargaining agent, if they do not want to." Employees' only choice, Mr. Becker has suggested time and again, should be over which set of union officials get "exclusive" (monopoly) bargaining power to negotiate their wages, benefits, and work rules. Thanks to President Barack Obama, Mr. Becker is in a position as 2011 winds down to begin implementing his extremist vision of what federal labor policy should be. In March 2010, Mr. Obama did the bidding of the union hierarchy by "recess" appointing Mr. Becker to the powerful National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Mr. Becker and Chairman Mark Pearce, another ex-union lawyer installed on the NLRB by Mr. Obama, now constitute a radical Big Labor majority on a rump, three-member NLRB. (Two of the board's five seats are currently vacant.) And late this November Mr. Pearce and Mr. Becker okayed changes to the current procedures for NLRB certification of unions that will, in practice, significantly undermine workers' right to choose against monopolistic union representation. The Obama NLRB originally planned to go even further to gut workers' "choice to remain unrepresented" -- a choice Mr. Becker has indicated he doesn't think should be legally protected at all. But intense public opposition, mobilized by the National Right to Work Committee and other allied groups, evidently influenced the NLRB to temper its haste somewhat. Employers May Soon Be Forced To Hand Employee Phone Numbers, E-Mail Addresses to Union Dons
NRTW Attorneys Win Victory Against 'Army Wives' Teamsters

NRTW Attorneys Win Victory Against 'Army Wives' Teamsters

Union policies prevented nonunion employees from finding work on ABC’s Army Wives television show From The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation: Washington, DC (December 19, 2011) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency charged with administering most private sector labor law, has upheld an Administrative Law Judge’s decision awarding over $55,000 in back pay to a television employee who was discriminated against by Teamster officials. The Board’s ruling stems from unfair labor practice charges filed by Thomas Coghill, an ABC driver who received free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Teamster Local 509 union officials are party to a monopoly bargaining agreement with ABC in Charleston, South Carolina that forces workers to go through the union’s hiring hall to get a job with the studio. Because Local 509 union members were working on other sets when production of Army Wives started, Thomas Coghill – a member of a different Teamster local – was hired as a makeup driver during the show’s first two seasons. As more Local 509 members became available to work on Army Wives, a dispute arose among various Teamster officials over who should be eligible to work on the program. Coghill was eventually removed from Local 509’s “Movie Referral List” because he did not belong to Local 509 while its members continued to receive preferential access to jobs on the set of Army Wives. Coghill responded to Local 509’s biased hiring procedure by filing unfair labor practice charges against the union on the grounds that federal labor law prohibits union officials from discriminating against nonunion employees. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys subsequently persuaded an Administrative Law Judge to award Coghill over $55,000 in back pay. Union lawyers unsuccessfully appealed the ruling to the NLRB, which has now affirmed the judge’s decision in its entirety.
NRTW Attorneys Win Victory Against 'Army Wives' Teamsters

NRTW Attorneys Win Victory Against 'Army Wives' Teamsters

Union policies prevented nonunion employees from finding work on ABC’s Army Wives television show From The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation: Washington, DC (December 19, 2011) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency charged with administering most private sector labor law, has upheld an Administrative Law Judge’s decision awarding over $55,000 in back pay to a television employee who was discriminated against by Teamster officials. The Board’s ruling stems from unfair labor practice charges filed by Thomas Coghill, an ABC driver who received free legal assistance from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Teamster Local 509 union officials are party to a monopoly bargaining agreement with ABC in Charleston, South Carolina that forces workers to go through the union’s hiring hall to get a job with the studio. Because Local 509 union members were working on other sets when production of Army Wives started, Thomas Coghill – a member of a different Teamster local – was hired as a makeup driver during the show’s first two seasons. As more Local 509 members became available to work on Army Wives, a dispute arose among various Teamster officials over who should be eligible to work on the program. Coghill was eventually removed from Local 509’s “Movie Referral List” because he did not belong to Local 509 while its members continued to receive preferential access to jobs on the set of Army Wives. Coghill responded to Local 509’s biased hiring procedure by filing unfair labor practice charges against the union on the grounds that federal labor law prohibits union officials from discriminating against nonunion employees. National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys subsequently persuaded an Administrative Law Judge to award Coghill over $55,000 in back pay. Union lawyers unsuccessfully appealed the ruling to the NLRB, which has now affirmed the judge’s decision in its entirety.
NLRB's Boeing Sham

NLRB's Boeing Sham

The Wall Street Journal looks at the political decision to file a complaint against Boeing and the political decision to withdraw it: What a sham, or scam, or choose a synonym. On Wednesday, the International Association of Machinists approved a new contract with Boeing in which the company agreed to make its 737 Max jet with union labor in Washington state. Yesterday, after getting the machinist all-clear, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) dropped its lawsuit against Boeing's investment in South Carolina. Has there ever been a more blatant case of a supposedly independent agency siding with a union over management in collective bargaining? Boeing says the new contract wasn't tied directly to a settlement of the NLRB complaint, and that it always made sense to build the 737 Max in Renton, Washington because its work force has experience on the current 737 and offers natural efficiencies. But it's hard to resist the conclusion that Boeing felt obliged to make the agreement to save its more than $1 billion investment in South Carolina, where it is building 787s. Boeing might have won a legal battle in the end, but first it would have to run through an administrative law judge, then the politicized and Obama-stacked NLRB, and only then would it get to an appellate court. Meanwhile, its investment was in jeopardy and its legal bill was rising.
NLRB's Boeing Sham

NLRB's Boeing Sham

The Wall Street Journal looks at the political decision to file a complaint against Boeing and the political decision to withdraw it: What a sham, or scam, or choose a synonym. On Wednesday, the International Association of Machinists approved a new contract with Boeing in which the company agreed to make its 737 Max jet with union labor in Washington state. Yesterday, after getting the machinist all-clear, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) dropped its lawsuit against Boeing's investment in South Carolina. Has there ever been a more blatant case of a supposedly independent agency siding with a union over management in collective bargaining? Boeing says the new contract wasn't tied directly to a settlement of the NLRB complaint, and that it always made sense to build the 737 Max in Renton, Washington because its work force has experience on the current 737 and offers natural efficiencies. But it's hard to resist the conclusion that Boeing felt obliged to make the agreement to save its more than $1 billion investment in South Carolina, where it is building 787s. Boeing might have won a legal battle in the end, but first it would have to run through an administrative law judge, then the politicized and Obama-stacked NLRB, and only then would it get to an appellate court. Meanwhile, its investment was in jeopardy and its legal bill was rising.