Marathon Pundit: More reaction to the NLRB's overreach

The uproar continues

From the Detroit News:

It is a measure of the perversion of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that it is now actively suing state governments to limit the rights of workers.

The NLRB has gained a lot of notoriety recently with its demand that Boeing, the Washington state-based aircraft maker, abandon its expansion plant for its Dreamliner plane in South Carolina . The agency said the expansion plant is an attempt to punish its unionized Washington state workers for their history of strikes. Additional work therefore can't be located in a right-to-work state such as South Carolina , according to the agency. That move has been widely denounced, with the Economist magazine referring to it as "loony."

But another move - usually mentioned in passing with the national coverage of the Boeing issue - is the NLRB's lawsuits seeking to overturn state constitutional amendments in Arizona and South Dakota guaranteeing workers secret ballot elections in unionization elections.

Voters in those two states, along with Utah and South Carolina , adopted the amendments during the last couple of years during the Congressional controversy over whether to adopt a labor union-backed bill making it easier to bypass secret ballot elections in favor of a process called "card-check." With card check, a union can be declared the bargaining agent for workers if it presents an employer with cards signed by a majority of its employees asking for the union's representation.

The American Spectator:

Two key agencies in the administration's efforts are the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the National Mediation Board (NMB). The NLRB supervises the National Labor Relations Act, which governs labor relations involving most private sector employees, while the NMB does the same for the Railway Labor Act (RLA), which governs railroad and airline employees.

The NLRB recently threatened to sue Boeing for its decision to build a major new plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state, as well as four states -- Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah -- for enacting amendments to their constitution that protect a worker's right to secret ballots in union organizing elections.

The NLRB's case against Boeing rests on a thin reed. The Board seized on a statement by Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh that an overriding factor in the decision to locate the plant in South Carolina was that the company cannot afford to have a work stoppage "every three years." The NLRB cited that statement as supposed evidence that Boeing was trying to retaliate against unionized workers in Washington State. In fact, Albaugh was not referring to any specific union job action.

Moreover, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which first filed the complaint against Boeing with the NLRB, had waived having a say on where the company could locate its new facilities. Finally, Boeing wasn't transferring any work but rather expanding it. The company, facing a backlog for orders of its new 787 Dreamliner passenger jet, had hired 2,000 additional workers at its Puget Sound facilities, even as it hired another 1,000 in South Carolina.

From the House Educations and Workforce Commiettee:

Kline and Roe Express Disappointment with NLRB's Inadequate Response to Congressional Inquiry

"The general counsel's office has offered to discuss our request further, and we intend to take them up on their offer."

WASHINGTON, D.C. | May 24, 2011 - Today, Republican leaders on the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce responded to the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) failure to provide requested documents related to its complaint filed against The Boeing Company. On May 5th, Chairman Kline and Representative Phil Roe, M.D. (R-TN) requested information from the NLRB to address questions surrounding the timing of the Boeing complaint, as well as concerns about public statements made by NLRB officials.

"The NLRB is not immune from congressional oversight or public scrutiny," said Chairman John Kline (R-MN). "While this insufficient response is not entirely unexpected from todays board, it is still extremely disappointing. In the case of Boeing, there are legitimate questions over public statements made by NLRB officials and the timing of its complaint. The American people deserve a full explanation and Congress has a right to a complete response. The general counsel's office has offered to discuss our request further, and we intend to take them up on their offer."

Rep. John Kline (R-MN)

"The troubling allegations the NLRB has filed against Boeing warrant further investigation," said Rep. Phil Roe, chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions. "I am disappointed the NLRB chose not to fully respond to important inquires made in the letter because the American people deserve answers. While all the facts in this case are still in dispute, thousands of jobs are at risk in South Carolina. The extreme remedy demanded by the NLRB will have a detrimental effect on local economies and a chilling effect on the American workforce. I am very concerned about NLRB's actions in this matter, and will be exploring these allegations further."

"Congress cannot stand by while the NLRB attempts to impose sweeping changes to labor laws that govern the nations workplaces," continued Chairman Kline. "For more than two years, the Obama board has pursued an activist agenda that champions the interests of Big Labor over the interests of all American workers. Republicans have pledged to make job creation a leading priority, and our oversight of the NLRB will remain an important part of that effort."

To read the May 5th letter by Chairman Kline and Rep. Roe, click here.

To read the NLRB's response, click here.

Not about the NLRB, but worth a look. From the Washington Post:

This is a maddening time for anyone concerned about the lives of working-class Americans. The frustration and anger that suffused AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka's declaration last week that labor would distance itself from the Democratic Party was both clear and widely noted. Not so widely noted has been a shift in the organizing strategy of two of labor's leading institutions — Trumka's AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union — that reflects a belief that the American labor movement may be on the verge of extinction and must radically change its game.

It took a multitude of Democratic sins and failures to push Trumka to denounce, if not exactly renounce, the political party that has been labor's home at least since the New Deal. In a speech at the National Press Club last Friday, Trumka said that Republicans were wielding a "wrecking ball" against the rights and interests of working Americans. But Democrats, he added, were "simply standing aside" as the Republicans moved in for the kill.

The primary source of labor's frustration has been the consistent inability of the Democrats to strengthen the legislation that once allowed workers to join unions without fear of employer reprisals. American business has poked so many holes in the 1935 National Labor Relations Act that it now affords workers no protections at all. Beginning with Lyndon Johnson's presidency, every time the Democrats have held the White House and strong majorities in both houses of Congress, bills that strengthened workers' rights to unionize have commanded substantial Democratic support — but never quite enough to win a Senate supermajority. And during that time, the unionized share of the private-sector workforce has dwindled from roughly 30 percent to less than 7 percent.

Many union activists viewed the 2009-10 battle for the most recent iteration of labor law reform — the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) — as labor's last stand. EFCA could never attain the magic 60-vote threshold required to cut off a filibuster, despite the presence, at one point, of 60 Democratic senators. Given the rate at which private-sector unionization continues to fall (which in turn imperils support for public-sector unions), many of labor's most thoughtful leaders now consider the Democrats' inability to enact EFCA a death sentence for the American labor movement.