Thursday NLRB overreach roundup (and the NMB)

Another day, and the overreach remains stretched out.

From the Daily Caller:

The recent lawsuits filed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against Arizona and South Dakota are an attack by the federal government on states that adopt laws that are consistent with federal law but inconsistent with the views of the current NLRB political leadership. With the exception of its lone Republican, Brian Hayes, the board's political appointees seek to promote the interests of organized labor without regard to legitimate managerial interests, as amply demonstrated by the recently filed complaint against Boeing, but also without regard to employee rights.

The issue is whether elections should be decided by secret ballot or by card check. In 2009 and 2010, voters in Arizona and South Dakota overwhelmingly adopted state constitutional amendments "guaranteeing" a secret ballot election when a question of union representation in the workplace arises and federal law permits or requires elections.

Federal law is no different. The National Labor Relations Act established the secret ballot election as the preferred method for determining employee free choice. Although the act has been interpreted to permit voluntary recognition by card check, the results of a secret ballot election are certified by the board; the results of a card check are not. Certification prevents rival unions or employees from challenging the results of the secret ballot for one year.

Current federal law guarantees a secret ballot election to both employers and employees. An employer does not have to acquiesce to a union's demand (or its employees' request) for recognition based on a card check; the employer can demand a secret ballot election. Similarly, if an employer voluntarily recognizes a union based on a showing of majority support by cards, its employees are given 45 days to demand a secret ballot election challenging the union’s majority claim.

The Washington Examiner:

The Machinists Union lodge in the Puget Sound -- the guys whose complaint led to the National Labor Relations Board's decision that could force Boeing to shrink back from its expansion into South Carolina -- has a new newsletter out asking members to allow a payroll deduction to the union's political action committee.

The union explicitly states that such campaign contributions buy access. Here's the relevant passage:

Q) What difference will my small contribution make when it takes so much money to elect a candidate?

A) STRENGTH IN NUMBERS – By itself, your contribution does not mean much. But then, your voice alone would not mean much in improving your wages, hours, and working conditions.

When we pool our MNPL dollars, like we pool our strength in collective bargaining, we are strong. Collectively, MNPL money gains your Union access to officials, which is critical to get our issues addressed and ensure our input is heard.

This is nothing scandalous. It's just unusually honest.

The Charleston Post and Courier:

Companies may have to give unions more information about their relocation plans under a proposal being considered by the National Labor Relations Board, which is under fire for a case against Boeing Co. over its North Charleston factory site.

Employers would have to share information with unions even if labor costs aren't the main reason for a relocation, said James Sherk, a labor analyst at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, which has said it supports free markets.

Mayor Joe Riley, Sen. Lindsey Graham, Gov. Nikki Haley, Rep. Bobby Harrell and Congressman Tim Scott spoke recently against the National Labor Relations Board's lawsuit against Boeing.

The change, outlined in a May 10 memo from the NLRB's associate general counsel, would require companies to engage in more bargaining over relocations, Sherk said.

The San Francisco Examiner:

Today, unions have lost relevance for more than 93 percent of American workers in the private sector, but this law remains with us, harming the ability of American businesses to compete. To see its results, we need only look south and west, to the success of our nation's 22 right-to-work states.

Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 allows states to pass right-to-work laws, which bar union membership from being used as a condition of employment. In practice, these laws make unions significantly less powerful and less disruptive than did the original NLRA rules, and with tremendously positive economic results for everybody concerned.

A recent study by the staff of Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., pointed to some revealing data. Between 1993 and 2009, right-to-work states created jobs twice as quickly as states where forced unionism is permitted, and they enjoyed 10 percent faster growth in personal income. Right-to-work states account for only 40 percent of the U.S. population, but they hosted 60 percent of the nation's new businesses from 1993 to 2009.

Such data contrasts mightily with facts such as this: Unions spent $400 million to elect President Barack Obama and Democrats in 2008 largely because of promises to use the federal government to restore labor to its former strength. The centerpiece of that effort was card check, which would have abolished secret ballots in workplace-representation elections if it hadn't failed in Congress.

Oh, there's also NMB overreach in the swamp.

From The Hill:

The chairman of the House Oversight Committee said Tuesday that he was going to look into the changed National Mediation Board rules for airline and railroad employees.

The NMB changed the rules last year to ensure that absentee votes were not counted as votes against forming an union.

That was later undone by the House, but the proposed rule consumed debate over the Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill. It also caught the attention of President Obama, who promised to veto the entire FAA bill if the NMB rules were undone.

Now, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) says he wants to take a look at whether the NMB was trying to "advance a partisan policy agenda."