Right to Work Battles to Rein in Obama NLRB

Right to Work Battles to Rein in Obama NLRB

Mark Mix: President Barack Obama is jeopardizing the very constitutional balance of the United States in order to pay off his union benefactors. But Right to Work officers and supporters are fighting back. Credit: Fox News Legislative Challenge to 'Ambush' Election Scheme Now Pending (source: National Right To Work Committee March 2012 Newsletter) On Capitol Hill, in federal court, and at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Right to Work proponents are now helping spearhead efforts to stop the Obama Administration and Big Labor from dragooning hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of additional workers into forced-dues-paying ranks every year. President Barack Obama instigated his latest showdown with Right to Work proponents on January 4, when he installed three new members on the five-member NLRB through "recess appointments," despite the fact that the U.S. Senate was manifestly not in recess. "The phony 'recess' appointments to the NLRB that President Obama made at the beginning of this year illegally circumvented at least two sections of the U.S. Constitution," charged National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix. "First, Article II, Section 2 grants to the chief executive the power to appoint 'officers of the United States,' but only 'by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.' "The Constitution makes it clear that only in cases when 'vacancies happen during recesses of the Senate' may the President make temporary 'recess' appointments to offices that normally require confirmation by Congress's upper chamber." President Claims Constitutional Definition of 'Recess' Can't Be Used to Limit His Power "Second, Mr. Obama and his Justice Department have attempted to justify his so-called 'recess' appointments by effectively asserting that it is the President's prerogative to declare that the Senate is in recess at any moment when the chamber is not actually conducting business," Mr. Mix continued. "But the constitutional definition of 'recess' in Article I, Section 5 contradicts this theory. That's why the White House is now contending this provision can't be used to restrict the President's appointment power."

Presidential Power Abused at Big Labor's Behest

Presidential Power Abused at Big Labor's Behest

Right to Work Fights Back Against 'Illegal' NLRB Appointments (source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President has the power to appoint "officers of the United States," but only "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." The Constitution makes it clear that only in cases when "vacancies . . . happen during recesses of the Senate" may the President make temporary "recess" appointments to offices that normally require confirmation by Congress's upper chamber. Unfortunately, in his eagerness to please union officials Inside the D.C. Beltway, a tiny but crucial constituency for his re-election bid this year, Democratic President Barack Obama is now seeking to render the Constitution's "advice and consent" requirement for executive appointments effectively meaningless. Early this January, the Senate was not in recess. For several weeks starting last December 20, the Senate was instead in a "pro forma" session during which it did not meet every day, but did periodically conduct business under "unanimous consent" agreements. No one can reasonably argue that this "pro forma" session was tantamount to a recess. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that neither the House nor the Senate may over the course of a Congress "adjourn for more than three days" without "the consent of the other." A La Humpty Dumpty, Mr. Obama Insists 'Recess' Means Whatever He Says It Means As syndicated columnist Michael Barone has explained: "The House did not consent to the adjournment of the Senate this year, so there is no recess, and hence no constitutional authority to make recess appointments."

Presidential Power Abused at Big Labor's Behest

Presidential Power Abused at Big Labor's Behest

Right to Work Fights Back Against 'Illegal' NLRB Appointments (source: National Right To Work Committee February 2012 Newsletter) Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President has the power to appoint "officers of the United States," but only "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." The Constitution makes it clear that only in cases when "vacancies . . . happen during recesses of the Senate" may the President make temporary "recess" appointments to offices that normally require confirmation by Congress's upper chamber. Unfortunately, in his eagerness to please union officials Inside the D.C. Beltway, a tiny but crucial constituency for his re-election bid this year, Democratic President Barack Obama is now seeking to render the Constitution's "advice and consent" requirement for executive appointments effectively meaningless. Early this January, the Senate was not in recess. For several weeks starting last December 20, the Senate was instead in a "pro forma" session during which it did not meet every day, but did periodically conduct business under "unanimous consent" agreements. No one can reasonably argue that this "pro forma" session was tantamount to a recess. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states that neither the House nor the Senate may over the course of a Congress "adjourn for more than three days" without "the consent of the other." A La Humpty Dumpty, Mr. Obama Insists 'Recess' Means Whatever He Says It Means As syndicated columnist Michael Barone has explained: "The House did not consent to the adjournment of the Senate this year, so there is no recess, and hence no constitutional authority to make recess appointments."

Judge Rubberstamps Obama’s NLRB Dictate, Sidesteps Constitutionality Question Regarding Obama Illegal NLRB Appointments

Judge Rubberstamps Obama’s NLRB Dictate, Sidesteps Constitutionality Question Regarding Obama Illegal NLRB Appointments

From the The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation release: Federal Court Rubberstamps Obama NLRB Rule to Push More Workers into Union Ranks National Right to Work Foundation fights Labor Board’s decision to promote monopoly unionism in virtually every workplace in Amerrica Washington, DC (March 2, 2012) – Today, a federal judge upheld the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) power to enforce its controversial new rule requiring virtually every employer in the country to post biased information about employee rights online and in the workplace, even if they’ve never committed a violation or been accused of unfair labor practices. The judge ruled that, if an employer fails to post the notice, it can be found to have committed an unfair labor practice and that fact can be used as evidence of “anti-union animus” in other cases in which an employer is accused of violating federal labor law. The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in conjunction with the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) filed the lawsuit challenging the notice posting rules with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Patrick Semmens, Legal Information Director of the National Right to Work Foundation, had the following statement in the wake of the judge’s ruling: “It is unfortunate that the court rubberstamped the Obama NLRB’s rule, giving union bosses another tool to push workers into forced union dues ranks, and threatening employers if they don’t display biased pro-compulsory unionism propaganda on their property.

'A Choice, Not an Echo' on Forced Unionism

'A Choice, Not an Echo' on Forced Unionism

While four of the current 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls have signed and returned surveys pledging 100% support for Right to Work if elected, so far front-runner Mitt Romney and two others have not. Credit: Fox News Right to Work Committee Intensely Lobbies Presidential Hopefuls (Source:  January 2012 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) As the 2012 presidential primaries and caucuses begin this month, millions and millions of Americans are looking for a clear alternative to the Obama Administration's relentless promotion of compulsory unionism. Ever since he became U.S. President three years ago, Barack Obama has eagerly championed Big Labor power grabs in Congress and selected forced-unionism zealots for leadership positions at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Labor Department, and other federal bureaucracies. But polls show the vast majority of all Americans who regularly vote in federal elections believe the Obama Administration is just plain wrong to favor forcing workers to pay union dues to get a job. And opposition to pro-forced unionism federal policies is especially intense among likely voters in the states where the crucial first contests for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination are taking place. Surveys recently conducted for the National Right to Work Committee by respected pollster Kellyanne Conway confirm that likely voters in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries this month overwhelmingly agree that federal labor laws should either protect the Right to Work, or be scrapped completely. 'Will the Next President Of the United States Stand up to Big Labor?' Ms. Conway's scientific survey, conducted November 18-21 by live interviewers at a computer-assisted telephone facility, found that 72% of likely Granite State primary voters believe federal law should "definitely not" allow "labor union officials to have a worker fired . . . for not paying union dues or fees." An additional 9% said federal should "probably not" allow that.

'A Choice, Not an Echo' on Forced Unionism

'A Choice, Not an Echo' on Forced Unionism

While four of the current 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls have signed and returned surveys pledging 100% support for Right to Work if elected, so far front-runner Mitt Romney and two others have not. Credit: Fox News Right to Work Committee Intensely Lobbies Presidential Hopefuls (Source:  January 2012 National Right to Work Committee Newsletter) As the 2012 presidential primaries and caucuses begin this month, millions and millions of Americans are looking for a clear alternative to the Obama Administration's relentless promotion of compulsory unionism. Ever since he became U.S. President three years ago, Barack Obama has eagerly championed Big Labor power grabs in Congress and selected forced-unionism zealots for leadership positions at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Labor Department, and other federal bureaucracies. But polls show the vast majority of all Americans who regularly vote in federal elections believe the Obama Administration is just plain wrong to favor forcing workers to pay union dues to get a job. And opposition to pro-forced unionism federal policies is especially intense among likely voters in the states where the crucial first contests for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination are taking place. Surveys recently conducted for the National Right to Work Committee by respected pollster Kellyanne Conway confirm that likely voters in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries this month overwhelmingly agree that federal labor laws should either protect the Right to Work, or be scrapped completely. 'Will the Next President Of the United States Stand up to Big Labor?' Ms. Conway's scientific survey, conducted November 18-21 by live interviewers at a computer-assisted telephone facility, found that 72% of likely Granite State primary voters believe federal law should "definitely not" allow "labor union officials to have a worker fired . . . for not paying union dues or fees." An additional 9% said federal should "probably not" allow that.