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.
U.S. Rep. Gowdy: NLRB continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda thwarting economic recovery

U.S. Rep. Gowdy: NLRB continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda thwarting economic recovery

From U.S. House Education & Workforce Committee press release: NLRB biasis a menaceto business When so many of our fellow citizens are looking for work and America is competing against other countries to land businesses, the National Labor Relations Board continues to pursue an activist, politically motivated agenda thwarting economic recovery and continuing to place our companies at a competitive disadvantage worldwide. Virtually everyone is familiar with the most glaring example of overreach and union pandering, which is the complaint against Boeing. Despite not a single example of job loss and despite not a single worker benefit in Washington State being lost, the NLRB sued Boeing seeking to have it close its South Carolina plant, displace the workers hired, and return the work to Washington State. That is Exhibit A in proving the NLRB has become a sycophant for Big Labor but is by no means the only piece of evidence. Currently, union elections take place on average within 31 days of the filing of an election petition. Additionally, unions are victorious more often than not when there is an election, but that is not good enough. Unions want more, so they persuaded the NLRB to propose sweeping changes to the election process, shifting the balance of power even further toward union seeking employees. By promoting "rush elections," and ruling that elections can take place in as little as 10 days, the board severely limits the opportunity for workers to hear all sides of the issue and make an informed decision. Additionally, employers would have only seven days to retain legal counsel and decipher the complex labyrinth of federal labor law before presenting their case before an NLRB hearing officer. House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline smartly introduced H.R. 3094, the Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act, to level the playing field. This legislation requires no union election occur in less than 35 days, thus granting all parties the ability to present their arguments and ensuring workers have the ability to reach an informed decision.

Forced Unionism on the War Path

The National Labor Relations Board has become nothing more than puppets for the union bosses who were unable to achieve their goals legislatively and have now set their sights on forcing workers into unions administratively. WFI's Fred Wszolek looks at the three-headed monster of schemes the board is proposing to foist coercive unionism on workers across the employment spectrum. The NLRB and DoL are working to enact three sweeping rule changes that would restrict the freedoms of employers, while significantly shifting workplace power into the hands of Big Labor. Workers who would be directly and negatively affected by these changes are largely unaware that Washington, D.C. has declared war against them and jobs by advancing bureaucratic regulations that will increase unemployment and restrict hard-won liberties. The NLRB is currently pushing two changes: quickie union elections and the formation of micro units. Both of these change decades-old board law and procedure that have not hurt unions, instead allowed them to win the majority of organizing elections and strengthened the collective bargaining unit that has been formed. Successful union elections are still taking place with a 67.6 percent success rate. It is reported that unions brought in $8.8 billion in dues in 2010. So why the need for these rules changes? A closer examination shows that, quite simply, the Obama Administration is bailing out Big Labor with little to no regard for implications on workers due to the fact union membership has declined. The proposed quickie election rule shortens the time for union elections from a median time of 38 days to as little as 10, depriving employees of the ability to make an informed choice on perhaps the most important issue they will face in the workplace: whether to unionize. The aim? To catch businesses off guard and leave them scrambling so that a vote happens before employees can study the facts. During an already difficult economic time, the proposal for quickie elections would place additional costs and burdens on small business owners, who lack the resources and legal expertise to navigate and fully comprehend the NLRB’s election processes.
Right To Work Committee Mobilizes Against NLRB Power Grab

Right To Work Committee Mobilizes Against NLRB Power Grab

If the Obama-selected top lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board gets his way, Boeing will have no real choice but to abandon a brand-new $2 billion plant and 1,000 good jobs in Right to Work South Carolina. Obama Bureaucrat Eager to Tell Businesses Where They May Expand (Source: June 2011 NRTWC Newsletter) Lafe Solomon, the man President Obama has selected to be the top lawyer for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), outraged millions of Americans across all regions of the country in April by asserting his agency has the prerogative, in many instances, to tell businesses where they may or may not expand. For decades, the NLRB has called the shots with regard to implementation of the National Labor Relations Act, the nation's principal federal labor law. The NLRA covers over 90% of private-sector businesses and front-line employees. The NLRB is thus, no doubt, powerful. Nevertheless, the claim of power by NLRB Acting General Counsel Solomon in his April 20 complaint filed to block Boeing from initiating a new aircraft production line in Right to Work South Carolina is remarkable. As economist Arthur Laffer and senior Wall Street Journal editorial page economics writer Stephen Moore noted in a pungent op-ed appearing in the Journal May 13, this is "the first time a federal agency has intervened to tell an American company where it can and cannot operate a [new] plant within the U.S." Well-informed apologists for compulsory unionism like New York Times labor reporter Steven Greenhouse and former Clinton-appointed NLRB Chairman William Gould don't dispute that the Boeing complaint is, to quote Mr. Greenhouse, "highly unusual." Acting General Counsel: Sensible Business Decision Equals 'Anti-Union Animus'

Want Jobs and Rising Income Levels? Pass Right to Work

The Investor's Business Daily confirms that enacting Right to Work laws is a recipe for jobs and economic growth: The business world is abuzz over the National Labor Relations Board's complaint vs. Boeing's new South Carolina production line. For NLRB critics, the case boils down to one thing: "right-to-work" laws. Right-to-work states have generally lower unemployment, higher job growth, lower taxes and better business climates. They have growing populations and have been attracting businesses from other states. In most states, once a workplace is unionized, employees are required to join the union or they can't work there. But 22 states, including South Carolina, have passed laws that give employees the right not to join. Hence the term "right-to-work." Unions dislike these laws for the obvious reason: It reduces their membership.