Rep. Darrell Issa Confronts Big Labor's Refusal to Abide by Law

Rep. Darrell Issa Confronts Big Labor's Refusal to Abide by Law

Perhaps if journalists weren't union members or weren't signing recall petitions against Gov. Scott Walker, we would see more information about Rep. Darrell Issa's report on how workers are being left in the dark about their rights not to join a union and in some cases are threatened to pay union dues.  Thankfully PJ Media has the story: PJ Media has reported on incidents of workers residing in states without “right-to-work” laws being forced to unionize in order to keep their jobs. In some instances, workers have been forced to unionize simply to care for disabled family members. An additional angle to this story: unions have been misappropriating those dues to skirt laws restricting a union’s ability to spend that money for political purposes. According to a report released by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), unions spent more than $1.1 billion in dues to finance political and lobbying activities during the 2010 election cycle. In the 27 states which do not have “right-to-work” laws — which prohibit forced unionization — workers are allowed to resign their union membership, but must then pay so-called “agency fees” so that they are not “free riding” on the union members’ collective bargaining. However, federal law prohibits the use of agency fees to support political candidates and causes to which the non-member objects, and requires that portion of their fees to be refunded upon demand. According to the report, getting that money refunded is extremely difficult: Many workers are intentionally left unaware of their rights, and in some cases are subjected to a campaign of threats and extortion. Additionally, because unions do not have to submit agency fee determinations to an independent auditor, unions can get around a worker’s Beck right by inaccurately categorizing almost all union expenditures as representational expenses.
Rep. Darrell Issa Confronts Big Labor's Refusal to Abide by Law

Rep. Darrell Issa Confronts Big Labor's Refusal to Abide by Law

Perhaps if journalists weren't union members or weren't signing recall petitions against Gov. Scott Walker, we would see more information about Rep. Darrell Issa's report on how workers are being left in the dark about their rights not to join a union and in some cases are threatened to pay union dues.  Thankfully PJ Media has the story: PJ Media has reported on incidents of workers residing in states without “right-to-work” laws being forced to unionize in order to keep their jobs. In some instances, workers have been forced to unionize simply to care for disabled family members. An additional angle to this story: unions have been misappropriating those dues to skirt laws restricting a union’s ability to spend that money for political purposes. According to a report released by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), unions spent more than $1.1 billion in dues to finance political and lobbying activities during the 2010 election cycle. In the 27 states which do not have “right-to-work” laws — which prohibit forced unionization — workers are allowed to resign their union membership, but must then pay so-called “agency fees” so that they are not “free riding” on the union members’ collective bargaining. However, federal law prohibits the use of agency fees to support political candidates and causes to which the non-member objects, and requires that portion of their fees to be refunded upon demand. According to the report, getting that money refunded is extremely difficult: Many workers are intentionally left unaware of their rights, and in some cases are subjected to a campaign of threats and extortion. Additionally, because unions do not have to submit agency fee determinations to an independent auditor, unions can get around a worker’s Beck right by inaccurately categorizing almost all union expenditures as representational expenses.
Obama NLRB Still 'Screwing Up the U.S. Economy'

Obama NLRB Still 'Screwing Up the U.S. Economy'

Pro-Right to Work Congressman Darrell Issa wants to know more about why the Boeing complaint was filed. Credit: www.businesspundit.com House Oversight Chairman Seeks Answers From Board's Top Lawyer (Source:  January 2012 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) The legal blitz launched against Boeing and its Palmetto State employees last spring by Lafe Solomon, the President Obama-appointed acting general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), is now over. Unfortunately, the grave threat to American employees' Right to Work stemming from this case is unabated. Last April 20, Mr. Solomon, the board's top lawyer, asked an NLRB administrative law judge to block Boeing from initiating a second Dreamliner 787 aircraft production line in Right to Work South Carolina. Mr. Solomon's case was built on a complaint filed by International Association of Machinists (IAM/AFL-CIO) union bosses. Employees in Right to Work States Are Mr. Solomon's Principal Targets Boeing had no right, union officials claimed, to expand production in a Right to Work state so as to cut the cost to customers, employees and shareholders of the disruptive strikes that the union brass had repeatedly instigated at the company's west coast facilities over the years.
Obama NLRB Still 'Screwing Up the U.S. Economy'

Obama NLRB Still 'Screwing Up the U.S. Economy'

Pro-Right to Work Congressman Darrell Issa wants to know more about why the Boeing complaint was filed. Credit: www.businesspundit.com House Oversight Chairman Seeks Answers From Board's Top Lawyer (Source:  January 2012 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) The legal blitz launched against Boeing and its Palmetto State employees last spring by Lafe Solomon, the President Obama-appointed acting general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), is now over. Unfortunately, the grave threat to American employees' Right to Work stemming from this case is unabated. Last April 20, Mr. Solomon, the board's top lawyer, asked an NLRB administrative law judge to block Boeing from initiating a second Dreamliner 787 aircraft production line in Right to Work South Carolina. Mr. Solomon's case was built on a complaint filed by International Association of Machinists (IAM/AFL-CIO) union bosses. Employees in Right to Work States Are Mr. Solomon's Principal Targets Boeing had no right, union officials claimed, to expand production in a Right to Work state so as to cut the cost to customers, employees and shareholders of the disruptive strikes that the union brass had repeatedly instigated at the company's west coast facilities over the years.
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.