NLRB Reverses Let's Employees Speak, well sort of

NLRB Reverses Let's Employees Speak, well sort of

From the National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation: Worker Advocate Blasts Labor Board Ruling to Allow Charleston Workers Minimal Say in Boeing Case  Big Labor watchdog slams ruling as insufficient; ploy to quietly sweep workers’ stories under the rug Washington, DC (June 20, 2011) – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C. has ruled three Charleston-area Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) employees are allowed to intervene, albeit minimally, in the NLRB’s high-profile case against Boeing. With free legal assistance from the National Right to Work Foundation, North Charleston Boeing employees Dennis Murray, Cynthia Ramaker, and Meredith Going, Sr. filed a motion earlier this month to intervene in the NLRB’s unprecedented case targeting the company for locating production of some of its 787 Dreamliner airplanes in South Carolina, in part due to its popular Right to Work law. An NLRB Administrative Law Judge in San Francisco denied the workers’ request and the workers were forced to file an emergency appeal with the national Board in Washington, D.C. The Board in D.C. has ruled that the employees can only file a brief in the case once the hearings, occurring in Seattle, Washington, are concluded.
Right to Work Fuels Prosperity

Right to Work Fuels Prosperity

UAW and BMW plan to expand in Right To Work state of South Carolina Otis Rawl, president and CEO of the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, lays it out straight in a recent column in the Charleston Post Courier entitled "Right to Work law fuels South Carolina's economic engine": I can't tell you how many business leaders have approached me over the past month to express their disbelief, and in some cases outrage, that the NLRB would so blatantly misuse its power by issuing a complaint requiring Boeing to open a second 787 facility in the state of Washington. The NLRB claims the complaint is to remedy what it calls an illegal transfer of work to non-union facilities in North Charleston. In reality, Boeing did what any responsible company in its situation would do -- locate in the most manufacturing-friendly place possible. The NLRB should enforce the law as it is written -- not as dictated by organized labor. Here in South Carolina, we enjoy a right-to-work status that makes our state very attractive to companies considering where to locate. Currently, 22 states have right-to-work laws that protect the rights of workers not to be forced to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment. Right-to-work states must protect that tradition, which is under attack as union numbers continue to drastically decline. The last thing we need is for the union to force the same formula on South Carolina that helped bring Detroit to its knees. In fact, the formula we have is working just fine. Consider this. The auto industry has created 85,000 full-time jobs across the state. Many are available thanks to international automotive plants in places like Greer, Timmonsville, Spartanburg and throughout South Carolina. We are fortunate to be such a sought-after location for successful manufacturers to bring new jobs to South Carolina. And, it is important to note that at the same time that South Carolina was developing these 85,000 new jobs, UAW members were losing almost 1.2 million throughout the U.S.

Right To Work freedom = Prosperity

Right To Work freedom strongly linked to economic prosperity explains Vincent Vernuccio in his Townhall post: The NLRB’s complaint is in fact a back-handed compliment to right-to-work laws, because it is based on the assumption that right-to-work laws help attract businesses. The preponderance of the evidence favors that position. As Arthur B. Laffer and Stephen Moore recently noted in the Wall Street Journal, from 2000 to 2009 right-to-work states “grew faster in nearly every respect than their union-shop counterparts: 54.6% versus 41.1% in gross state product, 53.3% versus 40.6% in personal income, 11.9% versus 6.1% in population, and 4.1% versus -0.6% in payrolls.” A recent analysis by the office of Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) shows that right-to-work states created 1.3 million more jobs in the private sector, had 3.5 percent faster income growth, and 46 percent higher business growth than forced union states between 1993 and 2009. And, according to a recent National Right to Work Committee analysis of Department of Labor data, over the past 10 years, the top five states in creating new jobs are right-to-work states, while the bottom five are forced unionism states. Workers in right-to-work states also have more disposable income than those in forced unionism states. In right-to-work states, unions must demonstrate to workers that their service has value or they will refuse to join. As in other areas of the economy, competition makes providers of goods and services—in this case the representation services of labor organizations—more efficient and responsive.

South Carolina Boeing Employees Move to Intervene in Obama Labor Board’s Assault on Right to Work Laws

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.
Republicans and Democrats on The NLRB Boeing Ruling

Republicans and Democrats on The NLRB Boeing Ruling

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.
Obama Bureaucrat Tells Boeing Where to Expand

Obama Bureaucrat Tells Boeing Where to Expand

Company Prodded to Abandon New Aircraft Plant in Right Work State (Source: May 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) To a rational observer, it's obvious that the antics of the strike-happy union bosses at Boeing's West Coast facilities over the past few decades have been detrimental to the interests of the aerospace company's rank-and-file domestic employees as well as its shareholders. Since 1975, International Association of Machinists (IAM/AFL-CIO) union bosses have ordered employees at Boeing's Washington State and Oregon facilities out on strike five times. The most recent strike, in 2008, lasted 58 days and cost the company $1.8 billion. In a highly competitive, globalized industry like aircraft production, such costly labor stoppages put Boeing jobs at risk. The potential harm to workers is far greater than any economic gain they could possibly reap from a strike. Obama NLRB's Top Lawyer: Sensible Business Decision Driven by 'Anti-Union Animus'

Where the Boeing Controversy Was Born

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.