NLRB's chief lawyer should stop obstructing Congress

NLRB's chief lawyer should stop obstructing Congress

Peter Schaumber, the former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, is urging the current NLRB to stop stonewalling Congress with regard to their efforts to punish Boeing and Right to Work States: “House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa of California needs to resolve the impasse over requested Boeing documents with Lafe Solomon, the acting general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. Congress has a right to know now whether the Boeing complaint reflects benign poor judgment or an abuse of the agency's prosecutorial discretion. Already, we know the filing of this complaint is chilling business investment in the United States, and for good reason. Since mid-May, Solomon has by and large stonewalled the committee's request for pre-complaint documents relating to the Boeing complaint. After a series of unproductive letters, the committee finally issued a subpoena for the documents on Aug. 12. Tensions mounted recently when the agency was found to have deleted certain emails from the few pre-complaint documents it provided the committee. This action demonstrates a decided lack of seriousness in responding to the congressional subpoena. Does the acting general counsel believe his office is immune to oversight? The Supreme Court has long recognized that the power of Congress to investigate "with process to enforce it -- is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function" (McGrain v. Daugherty). The fact that the agency is "independent" of the executive branch does not immunize it from congressional oversight; it makes legislative oversight all the more necessary.
NLRB's chief lawyer should stop obstructing Congress

NLRB's chief lawyer should stop obstructing Congress

Peter Schaumber, the former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, is urging the current NLRB to stop stonewalling Congress with regard to their efforts to punish Boeing and Right to Work States: “House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa of California needs to resolve the impasse over requested Boeing documents with Lafe Solomon, the acting general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. Congress has a right to know now whether the Boeing complaint reflects benign poor judgment or an abuse of the agency's prosecutorial discretion. Already, we know the filing of this complaint is chilling business investment in the United States, and for good reason. Since mid-May, Solomon has by and large stonewalled the committee's request for pre-complaint documents relating to the Boeing complaint. After a series of unproductive letters, the committee finally issued a subpoena for the documents on Aug. 12. Tensions mounted recently when the agency was found to have deleted certain emails from the few pre-complaint documents it provided the committee. This action demonstrates a decided lack of seriousness in responding to the congressional subpoena. Does the acting general counsel believe his office is immune to oversight? The Supreme Court has long recognized that the power of Congress to investigate "with process to enforce it -- is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function" (McGrain v. Daugherty). The fact that the agency is "independent" of the executive branch does not immunize it from congressional oversight; it makes legislative oversight all the more necessary.

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
House Chastises Obama NLRB's Top Lawyer

House Chastises Obama NLRB's Top Lawyer

Right to Work President Mark Mix: "At a minimum, the House should consider appropriations amendments cutting off funds for pursuing the Boeing case and for implementing several other ongoing NLRB power grabs." Credit: Fox Business News But Board Abuses Will Intensify Unless Congress Does Much More (Source: October 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) On September 15, the U.S. House voted 238-186 to rebuke Acting National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Lafe Solomon for trying to dictate where businesses may or may not expand. By passing H.R.2587, the Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act, last month, the House made a judgment that NLRB bureaucrats like Mr. Solomon should not have the power to order an employer to relocate jobs from one site to another. House members were responding specifically to Mr. Solomon's decision in April to file a complaint against Boeing for initiating a new 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 Washington State and Oregon facilities out on strike, Mr. Solomon claims these statements show Boeing was motivated by "anti-union animus." Consequently, the South Carolina expansion is illegal, declares Mr. Solomon. The Boeing case is currently before an NLRB administrative law judge and could potentially drag on for years. As Politics, 'the NLRB Issue Is a Doozy' For Big Labor Politicians Sponsored by pro-Right to Work freshman South Carolina Congressman Tim Scott (R), H.R.2587 aims to stop Mr. Solomon from penalizing employers legitimately concerned with strikes that disrupt production and alienate customers by telling them where they can or can't locate jobs.
House Chastises Obama NLRB's Top Lawyer

House Chastises Obama NLRB's Top Lawyer

Right to Work President Mark Mix: "At a minimum, the House should consider appropriations amendments cutting off funds for pursuing the Boeing case and for implementing several other ongoing NLRB power grabs." Credit: Fox Business News But Board Abuses Will Intensify Unless Congress Does Much More (Source: October 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) On September 15, the U.S. House voted 238-186 to rebuke Acting National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Lafe Solomon for trying to dictate where businesses may or may not expand. By passing H.R.2587, the Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act, last month, the House made a judgment that NLRB bureaucrats like Mr. Solomon should not have the power to order an employer to relocate jobs from one site to another. House members were responding specifically to Mr. Solomon's decision in April to file a complaint against Boeing for initiating a new 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 Washington State and Oregon facilities out on strike, Mr. Solomon claims these statements show Boeing was motivated by "anti-union animus." Consequently, the South Carolina expansion is illegal, declares Mr. Solomon. The Boeing case is currently before an NLRB administrative law judge and could potentially drag on for years. As Politics, 'the NLRB Issue Is a Doozy' For Big Labor Politicians Sponsored by pro-Right to Work freshman South Carolina Congressman Tim Scott (R), H.R.2587 aims to stop Mr. Solomon from penalizing employers legitimately concerned with strikes that disrupt production and alienate customers by telling them where they can or can't locate jobs.
Barack Obama, President of the SEIU

Barack Obama, President of the SEIU

Barack Obama is an effective president, unfortunately not of the United States but of the SEIU argues Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer: Unions — particularly public-employee unions — support illegal immigration because it serves their interests to have a permanent class of people who are financially dependent on the government. The sad secret about private-sector unions is that they are dying.  All they do now is drive up the cost of doing business, thereby preventing their own members from getting hired. Arizona is what we call a “right to work” state. As mandated by the Arizona Constitution, Arizonans are free to join a union or not — it’s their choice, not some union boss’s command. And interestingly enough, when employees are given the choice of whether or not to join a union, they increasingly say no. These workers understand that the rigid workplace rules and regulations that unions promote are bad for growth, bad for competitiveness, and bad for jobs. More and more workers recognize this. That’s why in the private sector, where employees have a real stake in the success of the businesses they work for, only 7.5 percent of workers are unionized. By contrast, more than 36 percent of public-sector workers are unionized, and more than 42 percent of local-government workers. That’s because public-sector workers in the federal government don’t have to worry about unemployment. Ever. In many federal agencies, the primary threat to job security is actually death. Democratic-party bosses love government workers because each of those workers must rely upon the health and growth of government to pay his salary and guarantee his benefits. If the government contracts or shuts down for any reason, those workers are out of a job. And public-sector unions love the Democratic bosses because they keep on growing government. The more people the Democrats can put on the payroll, the more voters they can lock up for their candidates. That gives public-sector unions like the SEIU (which includes huge numbers of public employees) unbelievable leverage. Because the party bosses want to keep government workers employed and happy, they’ll give the unions just about anything they want. And the best part (for them) is that it doesn’t cost them a thing. The taxpayers pick up the tab. Liberal politicians spend taxpayer money to grow government; the unions keep voting for (and contributing to) Democrats, and the Democrats stay in office so they can spend more of the taxpayers’ money growing government. It’s a simple, corrupt, mutual back-scratching circle. How does illegal immigration play into this? Most illegal aliens work hard. That is not in dispute. But the unfortunate fact is that most illegal aliens are also unskilled and uneducated. Unskilled workers have higher unemployment rates and lower earnings. Many rely on government programs to help support them and their families. Much of this access to the welfare system by these households is gained through their American-born children, who are U.S. citizens. That means more government, which means more public-sector-union members. Even if, in the short term, more illegal immigration means fewer union jobs, the unions are okay with that. It is a strategic cost they are willing to bear. Because they know that if the Democrats keep winning, they will give the unions subsidies, grow government, and employ more union members.
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.
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.