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'
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'
Right to Work Helps Everyone

Right to Work Helps Everyone

Writing in the Fort Wayne Gazette, David Long, the president of the state Senate and worker rights champion, outlines the benefits of enacting a Right to Work law for Indiana: There is little question what the No. 1 issue is on the minds of Hoosiers today: jobs. It’s all about jobs. Getting a job if you are currently unemployed; keeping your job if you are lucky enough to have one; attracting new jobs if you are involved with economic development. Indiana has seen unprecedented changes in its economic climate the past few years. We are consistently ranked in the top 10 states for doing business as a result of our reasonable cost of living, low taxes, and strong economic incentives and opportunities. And yet, it’s not enough. A quarter of a million Hoosiers remain unemployed, with tens of thousands trapped in an underemployed situation. Our youth unemployment rate is much higher, as it is, sadly, for our returning veterans. Can anyone question that we must do everything possible to bring more high-quality, high-paying jobs to our state? This is the goal of Republican leaders in the state legislature. Last week, we announced that our top priority for the upcoming legislative session is to pass a right-to-work law. There are some very good reasons why this is being proposed. Numerous testimonials by our state’s local economic development specialists show that nearly half of all companies looking to expand or relocate will not consider a state that doesn’t have a right-to-work law. This means that Indiana is losing out on thousands of high-paying jobs and billions of dollars in capital investment. In addition, there is strong research to support the economic case for a right-to-work law. A study from the Bureau of Economic Analysis found that personal income of residents in right-to-work states is higher than in non-right-to-work states. The National Institute for Labor Research found that right-to-work states score better on several key economic indicators, including faster growth and lower unemployment. The concept behind right to work is simple: It makes it illegal for unions to collect dues from employees who choose not to join the union.
Right to Work Opponents Are Wrong

Right to Work Opponents Are Wrong

Writing for the Indianapolis Political Examiner, Abdul-Hakim Shabazz confronts Big Labor's misinformation campaign against Right to Work laws head-on: While at the Statehouse on Organization Day, I took some time to speak to some of the protesters in the hallways about potential ‘Right to Work” (RTW) legislation.  I made it a point to keep an open mind and listen to their arguments against RTW.  After speaking to about half a dozen or so, I have come to the conclusion that the arguments against RTW are not based on logic, but based on emotion; albeit the emotion is fear and it is the most powerful of emotions, but it still a pathos-driven argument. I reached the conclusion that the arguments were emotionally-based, because the “logical” arguments against RTW aren’t very logical at all.  Allow me to walk through the main points. Right to Work is really right to work for less The data shows that when adjusted for costs of living, salaries in right to work states are comparable to non-RTW states. RTW is a way to break the unions Unions still exist under RTW laws, membership just can’t be compelled.  If a union is providing quality service and responding to its members needs, it shouldn’t have to worry about members bolting and leaving their ranks. RTW allow non-union workers to “freeload” off the union. When the employees agree to form a union, they can decide whether the collective bargaining agreement applies only to members or all employees.  So if a union decides to represent people who aren’t members and aren’t paying dues then that sounds like a personal problem to me. RTW interferes with an employer’s right to contract I find this argument the most intriguing.  Primarily since it usually comes from people who have no problem imposing government regulations on business (i.e. smoking bans), but for some reason this regulation they have some concern.
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.
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.

Sick of being FORCED to pay for union bosses' politics? Right To Work is the Answer

Terry Bowman, a UAW member,  writes in the The Detroit News that to end forced-dues-funded politics "the best and easiest solution is to pass a Right To Work law."  And, he is right.  The surest way to end compulsory-dues for politics is to end compulsory-dues. From Mr. Bowman's editorial: A worker's constitutional rights seem to take a back seat to the political privileges of the union. Earlier this year, UAW local 898 officials displayed their political views for everyone who drove by the union hall. "Recall Gov. Snyder, sign up here!" was the message glaring from the parking lot sign for all passers-by to see. A recent Harris poll shows that 60 percent of union households say that unions are too involved in politics, and we know that 40 percent or more of union households vote Republican. Unfortunately, union members who disagree with these partisan political attacks are forced, as a condition of employment, to financially support this message. Federal laws are supposed to restrict union officials from using regular dues for political purposes. Regrettably, it still happens all the time. In a 1988 Supreme Court decision called Communication Workers of America vs. Beck, unions were forbidden to collect full union dues from non-members; only those dues that are supposed to reflect the true cost to the union as a collective bargaining agent. In other words, members could choose to resign their union membership and then only pay what is called the "agency fee" to keep their job. Obviously, there are problems with this ruling. Workers who wish to exercise these rights have to jump through hoops, and they are then persecuted and ridiculed on the job for doing so. The agency fee also includes all the educational and subjective political activities that unions engage in. Union newsletters and magazines are full of political propaganda, and union officials travel the country spewing hateful venom and a destructive worldview, yet their salaries are paid for with regular union dues. And there is so much more.