ERA would require employees to reaffirm unions every 3 years

ERA would require employees to reaffirm unions every 3 years

Most employees working under a union contract have never voted to be organized by a union.  Sen. Hatch and Rep. Scott want to fix that wit the Employee Rights Act.  From the Washington Times: In an effort to loosen labor’s grip on workers, two GOP lawmakers want legislation that would require workers to re-affirm the existence of their unions with new votes every three years. Sen. Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina are pushing the Employee Rights Act that also would place limits on strikes, how fast a union can organize and how membership fees may be used to support political candidates. The bill has yet to receive a committee hearing in either chamber. Few workers - less than 10 percent of union members - vote to organize. Instead, most workers join an existing union as a condition of employment. This bill, however, would give workers a chance to voice their opinions. Union officials would be up for re-election every three years. At that time, employees could decide whether to keep or eliminate their union. “My goal is to make sure that employees of a company make the decision on joining unions,” Mr. Scott said. “This just gives them an opportunity to say, ‘Yes, I want to be a part of the union.’"

Obama Reelection Gambit; Ignores Constitution & Gives Big Labor the NLRB

Obama Reelection Gambit; Ignores Constitution & Gives Big Labor the NLRB

Typically before a reelection, Presidents try to avoid creating constitutional battles. Not President Obama, he bypassed the Senate and appointed three NLRB board members.  Effectively, Obama handed the NLRB over to Big Labor Bosses, his biggest political spenders and political ground force, or “his army” as Teamster Boss Hoffa describes it. Election 2012 has already become ugly. This power grab by a desperate president gives Big Labor control over the NLRB, which was supposedly established to referee labor relations disputes.  Obama’s actions will make Big Labor the Harlem Trotters of labor disputes. Also, it will create a legal battle with Republicans in congress.  A battle the former constitutional law professor seems to seek. From the Hill: The recess appointments President Obama announced Wednesday are “almost certain” to be challenged in court … The recess appointments broke with legal precedent, as they while the Senate is holding regular pro forma sessions. Republicans insist the Senate has not been in recess thanks to the seconds-long sessions held every few days, but White House attorneys determined the procedural move is a gimmick that can be ignored by the president. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) blasted the move as an "unprecedented power grab" and said he expects "the courts will find the appointment to be illegitimate." The gambit puts the bureau in "uncertain legal territory," according to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). From the Washington Times: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks; Nominations could provoke constitutional fight Pushing the limits of his recess appointment powers, President Obama on Wednesday bypassed the Senate to install three members of the National Labor Relations Board and a director for the controversial new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - moves Republicans said amounted to unconstitutional power grabs Big Labor applauds, from In These Times: Obama Makes Recess Appointments to NLRB. Is It Enough for AFL-CIO Endorsement?

Obama Reelection Gambit; Ignores Constitution & Gives Big Labor the NLRB

Obama Reelection Gambit; Ignores Constitution & Gives Big Labor the NLRB

Typically before a reelection, Presidents try to avoid creating constitutional battles. Not President Obama, he bypassed the Senate and appointed three NLRB board members.  Effectively, Obama handed the NLRB over to Big Labor Bosses, his biggest political spenders and political ground force, or “his army” as Teamster Boss Hoffa describes it. Election 2012 has already become ugly. This power grab by a desperate president gives Big Labor control over the NLRB, which was supposedly established to referee labor relations disputes.  Obama’s actions will make Big Labor the Harlem Trotters of labor disputes. Also, it will create a legal battle with Republicans in congress.  A battle the former constitutional law professor seems to seek. From the Hill: The recess appointments President Obama announced Wednesday are “almost certain” to be challenged in court … The recess appointments broke with legal precedent, as they while the Senate is holding regular pro forma sessions. Republicans insist the Senate has not been in recess thanks to the seconds-long sessions held every few days, but White House attorneys determined the procedural move is a gimmick that can be ignored by the president. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) blasted the move as an "unprecedented power grab" and said he expects "the courts will find the appointment to be illegitimate." The gambit puts the bureau in "uncertain legal territory," according to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). From the Washington Times: Obama defies Congress with ‘recess’ picks; Nominations could provoke constitutional fight Pushing the limits of his recess appointment powers, President Obama on Wednesday bypassed the Senate to install three members of the National Labor Relations Board and a director for the controversial new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - moves Republicans said amounted to unconstitutional power grabs Big Labor applauds, from In These Times: Obama Makes Recess Appointments to NLRB. Is It Enough for AFL-CIO Endorsement?

NLRB Chooses Big Labor Compulsion Over Constitutionally Protected Religious Freedom

NLRB Chooses Big Labor Compulsion Over Constitutionally Protected Religious Freedom

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) continues to find new ways to compel employees into the hands of Big Labor; this time ignoring the Constitution and past Supreme Court rulings. According to the Washington Times’ Patrick J. Reilly, this is not the first time: On May 26, the Chicago regional director for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) declared that St. Xavier University, a Catholic institution established by the Sisters of Mercy, was not sufficiently religious to be exempt from federal jurisdiction. The ruling came just four months after a similar ruling against the Christian Brothers' Manhattan College, which has appealed to the national board for a reversal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District has twice already ordered the NLRB to cease harassing religious colleges and universities. In 2002 and 2008 rulings, the court reversed the NLRB and exempted religious institutions from requirements of the National Labor Relations Act.

IOU’s Called In  -- Payback Appointment

IOU’s Called In -- Payback Appointment

The Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal discuss the possibility of a recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.  A recess appointment would bypass the will of the Senate and install a self-proclaimed forced unionism radical to the Board.  The Washington Times correctly opines:   Mark Mix of the National Right to Work organization reports that in 2007 alone, Mr. Becker's lawyering forced 63,000 California workers to pay union dues even after rejecting union membership. He allowed repeated "home visits" for union backers, designed to pressure workers to sign public union-organizing petitions. Unions were "formed to escape the evils of individualism and individual competition. ... Their actions necessarily involve coercion," Mr. Becker once explained. This gets to the heart of the fears about this nomination. The administration so far has been unable to push through Congress the radical plan to force union organizing through "card check" mechanisms in which workers would be denied a secret ballot when voting on whether to unionize. The purpose, clearly, is to invite coercion and intimidation to increase the ranks of dues-paying members. Mr. Becker let slip his suggested solution to the congressional difficulty back in 1993, when he said the NLRB could impose card check, or something close to it, with "no alteration of the statutory framework." Indeed, he openly called for "abandoning the union election."