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:  Law Breakers?

NLRB: Law Breakers?

Conn Carroll of the Washington Examiner raises an interesting question:  Did the National Labor Relations Board violate federal law? What if there were emails showing Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor coordinating with Attorney General Eric Holder and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs on how the Obama administration should fight judicial challenges to Obamacare? At a bare minimum, Justice Sotomayor would have to recuse herself from the case, she might be impeached, and Holder would face serious ethics questions as well. But such emails do not exist ... concerning Obamacare. When it comes to the National Labor Relations Board suit against Boeing, that is a different story. Cause of Action, a government accountability nonprofit, has obtained emails through a Freedom of Information Act request showing then-NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman, NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon and NLRB Public Affairs Director Nancy Cleeland coordinating the board's response to its own decision to sue Boeing for opening a factory in the right to work state of South Carolina. But, since the NLRB is an independent agency, shouldn't they be allowed to coordinate about ongoing litigation? Yes and no. The NLRB is supposed to be an independent agency, capable of creating rules, enforcing them and adjudicating them. But because the NLRB has within itself all of the governing powers our Founding Fathers believed should be separated (legislative, executive and judicial), its creators also wrote rules making it illegal for board employees who perform different functions from communicating with each other under certain circumstances. Specifically, 29 C.F.R. 102.126 and 29 C.F.R. 102.127 forbid a member of the board from requesting or "knowingly caus[ing] to be made" any ex parte communications with any interested person outside the agency relevant to the proceeding. That same regulation also forbids any "interested person outside this agency" from making any ex parte communications to board members.

Ethics Violator: Craig Becker

The American Spectator looks behind the curtain at the man primarily responsible for turning the National Labor Relations Board into a vehicle for big labor advocacy -- former SEIU General Counsel Craig Becker.  But in doing so, Becker violated ethics pledges made by his boss, President Obama. For the last few months, Boeing has been clashing with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) over its decision to locate a plant in South Carolina. The NLRB argues that the airplane manufacturer illegally moved work from union factories in Washington state to a new $1 billion facility in the right-to-work Palmetto State. NLRB lawyers maintain this is straightforward retaliation against union workers, based on comments allegedly made by Boeing executives themselves. Business leaders have denounced this as an unprecedented bit of federal pro-union advocacy, with the House of Representatives last week voting to halt the Boeing case and others like it. The battle may soon intensify. Federal financial disclosure forms reveal that Craig Becker, a key union-friendly vote on the NLRB, owned stock in Boeing at the beginning of this year. Becker is one of federal agency's Democratic board members. According to documents obtained by the National Right to Work Committee, as of January 2011 Becker owned between $1,001 and $15,000 in Boeing stock, earning between $201 and $1,000 in dividends. This particular public financial disclosure report does not require more specific information. The disclosure already has people detecting a potential conflict of interest. "The fact that Mr. Becker owns or owned stock in Boeing could be extremely detrimental to the NLRB's case against that company," says F. Vincent Vernuccio, labor policy counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "If Mr. Becker currently owns stock in Boeing then he should recuse himself from hearing the case." Any recusal could imperil the NLRB's ability to take the Boeing case at all. Since former member Wilma Liebman's term expired, the normally five-member board is down to just three members. "The Supreme Court recently ruled that the NLRB must have three members or there will be no quorum," says Vernuccio. "If Becker is not able to sit on the case there can be no decision for Boeing." Another labor policy watcher familiar with Becker's Boeing investment acknowledges it is a relatively small amount of money. "But how big does it have to be before there can be a conflict of interest?" he asks. "It's not like there is a minimum where it would be okay." Becker, a perennial labor lightning rod, has faced calls to recuse himself before. A former lawyer for the AFL-CIO and SEIU, Becker said in a footnote to a June 2010 ruling that he would recuse  himself from cases in which either of those unions was a party. Becker cited compliance with the Obama administration's ethics policy as his reason for bowing out of those decisions.

New Privileges For Transportation Union Chiefs?

New Privileges For Transportation Union Chiefs?

    Principled U.S. House Leadership Can Thwart Big Labor Power Grab (Source: September 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) Over the next few weeks, the U.S. House will have the opportunity to turn back a Big Labor-inspired bureaucratic rewrite of the procedures through which union officials acquire monopoly-bargaining privileges under the Railway Labor Act (RLA). If self-avowedly pro-Right to Work House leaders and rank-and-file members blow this opportunity, another one won't come for a long time. In June 2010, President Obama's two appointees on the three-member National Mediation Board (NMB) instituted an RLA rule change making it far easier for airline and railroad union chiefs to acquire monopoly power to negotiate employees' pay, benefits, and work rules. NMB members Harry Hoglander and Linda Puchala, the two Obama-selected bureaucrats favoring the rule change, are both ex-union bosses. They overturned decades-old procedures previously supported by GOP and Democratic presidential administrations alike. Union Monopoly Bargaining Hurts Employees and Businesses Federally-imposed "exclusive" (monopoly) union bargaining undermines efficiency and productivity by forcing employers to reward equally their most productive and least productive employees. The damage is compounded when the employees already hurt by being forced to accept a union bargaining agent opposed to their interests are then forced to pay dues or fees to the unwanted union.

'Without Any Warning, the Rules Have Changed'

'Without Any Warning, the Rules Have Changed'

  New York Times Pundit: Reckless Obama NLRB 'Paralyzing' Economy (Source: September 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) For years, New York Times commentator Joe Nocera has been one of the most relentless champions of government regulation of business and "stimulus" spending in the American media. When even Mr. Nocera starts agreeing with critics of a presidential administration that it has gone "too far" in interfering with the decision-making of businesses and their employees, that administration clearly has a serious problem. Therefore, Mr. Nocera's August 23 Times column about the ongoing effort by Acting National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Lafe Solomon to dictate where businesses may or may not expand should have set off alarm bells at the White House. Mr. Solomon's immediate target is Boeing and its employees in Right to Work South Carolina. In April, he filed a complaint against the company, America's biggest exporter of manufactured products, for initiating a new 787 Dreamliner assembly line in North Charleston. As Mr. Nocera observed in his column bemoaning this Solomon power grab, "Boeing's aircraft assembly has long been done by its unionized work force in Puget Sound, Wash." Indeed, seven Dreaminers will still be assembled each month in Puget Sound. "The South Carolina facility," Mr. Nocera explained, "is a hedge against the possibility" that International Association of Machinists (IAM) union kingpins will order unionized employees in Puget Sound out on strike, and thus "shut down production of the Dreamliner." A 'Mind-Boggling Stretch' To Characterize Boeing's Strategy as 'Retaliation'

'Without Any Warning, the Rules Have Changed'

'Without Any Warning, the Rules Have Changed'

  New York Times Pundit: Reckless Obama NLRB 'Paralyzing' Economy (Source: September 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) For years, New York Times commentator Joe Nocera has been one of the most relentless champions of government regulation of business and "stimulus" spending in the American media. When even Mr. Nocera starts agreeing with critics of a presidential administration that it has gone "too far" in interfering with the decision-making of businesses and their employees, that administration clearly has a serious problem. Therefore, Mr. Nocera's August 23 Times column about the ongoing effort by Acting National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Lafe Solomon to dictate where businesses may or may not expand should have set off alarm bells at the White House. Mr. Solomon's immediate target is Boeing and its employees in Right to Work South Carolina. In April, he filed a complaint against the company, America's biggest exporter of manufactured products, for initiating a new 787 Dreamliner assembly line in North Charleston. As Mr. Nocera observed in his column bemoaning this Solomon power grab, "Boeing's aircraft assembly has long been done by its unionized work force in Puget Sound, Wash." Indeed, seven Dreaminers will still be assembled each month in Puget Sound. "The South Carolina facility," Mr. Nocera explained, "is a hedge against the possibility" that International Association of Machinists (IAM) union kingpins will order unionized employees in Puget Sound out on strike, and thus "shut down production of the Dreamliner." A 'Mind-Boggling Stretch' To Characterize Boeing's Strategy as 'Retaliation'

Obama’s NLRB shredding of Democracy exposed in congressional hearing

Obama’s NLRB shredding of Democracy exposed in congressional hearing

As noted in a previous BigGovernment posting, the Obama NLRB has literally chosen to shred secret ballots and thus democracy in the workplace. In what clearly was a gift to Big Labor and its collusive agreements with certain employers, the NLRB took away the right for employees to have a secret ballot election immediately following a coercive union ‘card check’ drive. In addition, it retroactively took action and cancelled secret ballots that had already been cast or were set to be cast. Barbara Ivey of the forced unionism state of Oregon and her co-workers were victims of the totalitarian NLRB actions. On August 26th, as Big Labor Attorney and NLRB Chair Wilma Liebman’s term expired and she slinked back to her Big Labor law practice, the NLRB voted to repeal “DANA rights” in its Lamons Gasket decision. [stream provider=youtube flv=8Z1clf_gVI8 img=x:/nrtwc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/iveyweb.jpg embed=false share=false width=350 height=260 dock=true controlbar=over bandwidth=high autostart=false /] Mrs. Ivey was invited by the Education & Workforce Committee to testify about her shock that the U.S. government took away her right to a secret ballot, especially since the NLRB had earlier said she had the right and had scheduled the vote only days after the fateful Lamons Gasket decision. She and her fellow employees never got a chance for a secret ballot to vote, and now she will be forced to pay tribute to an SEIU union boss in order to keep her job. The video above is taken from the Education & Workforce Committee hearing where the Obama NLRB usurpation of power and destruction of individual liberty is on display. Because of this decision numerous secret ballots that have already cast in workplaces across the country will never be counted. The ballots reportedly are currently stored at NLRB, then will eventually be shredded or disposed of in another manner. To borrow from the Wisconsin union thugs, “This is what DEMOCRACY looks like” in an Obama Administration!