From the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation: Obama NLRB to South Carolina Boeing Employees: “You Have No Stake in Your Jobs” National Right to Work Foundation attorneys continue to help workers save their jobs…
From the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation: Machinist union bosses join with NLRB Acting General Counsel to tell workers to “sit down and shut up” about losing their jobs Washington, DC (June 8, 2011) – Yesterday, Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon, International Association of Machinist (IAM) union lawyers, and Boeing Corp. (NYSE: BA) attorneys responded to a motion filed by three North Charleston Boeing employees seeking to intervene in the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) case against Boeing. The North Charleston employees are receiving free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. The NLRB’s complaint, if successful, would almost certainly eliminate thousands of jobs in South Carolina, including those of the three Boeing workers represented by Foundation attorneys. Foundation President Mark Mix released the following statement in response to the Acting General Counsel’s and IAM union lawyers’ opposition to the employees’ motion: “Acting General Counsel Solomon’s and the IAM union lawyers’ opposition to the Charleston employees’ motion to intervene in the NLRB’s persecution of Boeing is a slap in the face of all independent-minded American workers and citizens who support duly-enacted Right to Work laws in their states that protect employees’ choice over whether or not to financially support a union.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) continues to find new ways to compel employees into the hands of Big Labor; this time ignoring the Constitution and past Supreme Court rulings. According to the Washington Times’ Patrick J. Reilly, this is not the first time: On May 26, the Chicago regional director for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) declared that St. Xavier University, a Catholic institution established by the Sisters of Mercy, was not sufficiently religious to be exempt from federal jurisdiction. The ruling came just four months after a similar ruling against the Christian Brothers' Manhattan College, which has appealed to the national board for a reversal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District has twice already ordered the NLRB to cease harassing religious colleges and universities. In 2002 and 2008 rulings, the court reversed the NLRB and exempted religious institutions from requirements of the National Labor Relations Act.
From the The National Right To Work Legal Defense press release (6/2/2011): National Right to Work Foundation attorneys helping workers and former Machinist union president challenge attempt to send jobs to Washington Washington, DC (June 2, 2011) – With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, a group of Charleston-area Boeing Corporation employees are asking to intervene in the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) unprecedented case targeting Boeing for locating production in South Carolina in part due to its popular Right to Work law. That law ensures that union dues and membership are strictly voluntary. The NLRB’s complaint, if successful, would eliminate over 1,000 existing jobs in South Carolina, not to mention several thousand more jobs that would be created once the Boeing plant reaches full production capacity. Further, the case could set a dangerous precedent that allows union bosses to dictate where job providers locate their facilities.
The National Review's Andrew Stiles looks at the battle between the NLRB and elected officials and most interestingly points out that Democrats, elected from Right to Work states, have for the most part, refused to stand for the interests of their constituents. -- A group of GOP senators drafted legislation not only to head off the NLRB’s pending action against Boeing but also to prevent any similar attempts against other companies in the future. But the bill quickly stalled when it became clear that not one of the eleven Senate Democrats representing right-to-work states was willing to stand up to the White House and Big Labor by signing on as cosponsors. Not even Sens. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) and Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), two moderates from right-to-work states facing tough reelection battles next year, would stick up for their states. -- Meanwhile, of the 22 governors in right-to-work states, only two are Democrats. One of them, Mike Beebe of Arkansas, has expressed concern that the NLRB ruling could be “detrimental” to his state’s economic-development efforts.
The Wall Street Journal's editorial page connects the dots to discover that the NLRB's complaint against Boeing and companies moving to Right to Work states is not the actions of a rouge General Counsel but the suggestion of the Chairman of the Committee Wilma Liebman. The Obama-era National Labor Relations Board has tilted so heavily toward union interests that companies might be forgiven for thinking the process is rigged against them. A recent missive from one of the agency's top lawyers shows why. In a May 10 memo to regional staffers, Associate General Counsel Richard Siegel discusses a March case in which the NLRB sided with telecommunications company Embarq Corp. in a dispute over its decision to close a Las Vegas call center and open a bigger facility in Florida. The company refused to explain to its union the rationale for the move. In America, business decisions are made by owners or executives and are rarely subject to compulsory bargaining, while unions confine their concerns to working conditions, pay and benefits. NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman, a long-time union lawyer, doesn't like that balance. "The Board's task would be easier, and more importantly, the [National Labor Relations] Act's policy of promoting collective bargaining might well be better served, if employers were required to provide unions with requested information about relocation decisions whenever there was a reasonable likelihood that labor-cost concessions might affect the decision," she wrote in her concurrence to the Embarq case. Translation: Ms. Liebman wants to force far more companies to consult unions when they want to relocate, because unions might theoretically be able to offer concessions to avert a move if they had more information. Never mind that such a rule change would be an unprecedented intrusion into boardrooms, or that unions might use collective bargaining to request reams of data, such as payrolls and tax returns, to increase their negotiating leverage. In a "future case," Ms. Liebman added, "I would be open to modifying" the rule. Wink, nudge.
AFL-CIO boss Dick Trumka speech where he issued the hollow threat to the Democrat Party to take his fidelity elsewhere, is being called Trumka's Tirade by the Pittsburgh Tribune: Big Labor boss Richard Trumka has issued an ultimatum to unions' lackeys in Congress: Meet our unrelenting demands or find another sugar daddy to fund your campaigns next year. "We will spend the summer holding elected leaders in Congress as well as the states accountable on one measure: Are they improving or degrading life for working families (of union members)?" says the AFL-CIO's Mr. Trumka. And Trumka says Democrats may be "controlling the wrecking ball" that's hurting unions. How's that for gratitude? Whereas unions, given their substantial contributions to Democrats in the last presidential election, didn't get everything on their quite lengthy wish list, they've made substantial inroads with Team Obama at the federal level. Those inroads lead to the National Labor Relations Board.
AFL-CIO boss Dick Trumka speech where he issued the hollow threat to the Democrat Party to take his fidelity elsewhere, is being called Trumka's Tirade by the Pittsburgh Tribune: Big Labor boss Richard Trumka has issued an ultimatum to unions' lackeys in Congress: Meet our unrelenting demands or find another sugar daddy to fund your campaigns next year. "We will spend the summer holding elected leaders in Congress as well as the states accountable on one measure: Are they improving or degrading life for working families (of union members)?" says the AFL-CIO's Mr. Trumka. And Trumka says Democrats may be "controlling the wrecking ball" that's hurting unions. How's that for gratitude? Whereas unions, given their substantial contributions to Democrats in the last presidential election, didn't get everything on their quite lengthy wish list, they've made substantial inroads with Team Obama at the federal level. Those inroads lead to the National Labor Relations Board.
From the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce (5/24/2011): Kline and Roe Express Disappointment with NLRB's Inadequate Response to Congressional Inquiry “The general counsel's office has offered to discuss our request further, and we intend to take them up on their offer.” Today, Republican leaders on the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce responded to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) failure to provide requested documents related to its complaint filed against The Boeing Company. On May 5th, Chairman [John] Kline and Representative Phil Roe, M.D. (R-TN) requested information from the NLRB to address questions surrounding the timing of the Boeing complaint, as well as concerns about public statements made by NLRB officials. "The NLRB is not immune from congressional oversight or public scrutiny," said Chairman John Kline (R-MN). "While this insufficient response is not entirely unexpected from todays board, it is still extremely disappointing. In the case of Boeing, there are legitimate questions over public statements made by NLRB officials and the timing of its complaint. The American people deserve a full explanation and Congress has a right to a complete response. The general counsel's office has offered to discuss our request further, and we intend to take them up on their offer."