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.

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'

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.

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.