Marathon Pundit: NLRB overreach, dirty rat edition

Morton Grove, IL, May 2011

More NLRB overreach. Why do unions need more favorable election rules when they win most of the time?

First from the American Spectator:

In his testimony today before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Brett McMahon, vice-president of business development for the Miller and Long Company, a construction firm, raises an interesting point. Unions have already been winning over 60 percent of the organization elections that are held. So why does Obama's team of labor lawyers find it necessary to institute so called "quickie elections."

In June, the three Democrats who sit on the Board proposed rule changes that would curtail the amount of time for private union elections. Brian Hayes, the only Republican member of the board, has been sharply critical of the proposal, but his input has been limited.

If the rule changes go into effect, they would set elections from a current median time of 37 days to as little as 10 days from the filing of an election petition. They would also set pre-election hearings for 7 days after a petition is filed; the rules would also require the employer to respond to a pre-hearing questionnaire raising any legal issues or waive its right to do so. And finally, the new rules would defer a decision on the issues raised at the hearing till after the election, putting an employer at risk if the decision is challenged.

"The NLRB is making itself a hazard to the economic well being of working people by chilling the entrepreneurial spirit of free enterprise that has brought more prosperity to more people than any other system in human history," McMahon said in testimony. "It is not now, nor will it ever be, the single catalyst that causes large lay offs or stifles job creation. Rather it is the series of actions that this Board takes that add to the weight that hurts businesses today. Don't adopt this rule. It is unwise in this economic climate and it is unfair to workers and employers."

ABC News:

Maurice Baskin, who testified before the board on behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors, said there is a "sense of outrage" in the business community over the proposed changes.

"In the midst of this terrible economy the NLRB is proposing new and burdensome regulations that appear to have no purpose other than to promote union organizing," Baskin said.

Baskin said the changes are "unlawful on their face" and "particularly offensive to small businesses" who do not have labor lawyers on staff and are often "completely at sea" when they receive a petition for union membership.

Baskin argued that seven days is not nearly enough time for employers to research their legal options, consult with a lawyer and discuss possible union membership with their employees.

And now the "dirty rat" part. From Fox News:

A huge, rat-shaped balloon sits menacingly in protest outside the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) headquarters in Washington, DC. as the federal agency's board members hear arguments for and against proposals to change union-organizing election rules.

In May, the NLRB ruled the inflatable rat-gesture, usually reserved for businesses deemed unfair to workers by labor unions, an appropriate tool in the arsenal of labor protestors.

But, labor protestors aren't responsible for this particular rodent. Pro-business advocacy group Americans for Job Security (AJS) put it there. AJS said in a statement they did it to "shed light on the agency's recent decision allowing union bosses to employ intimidation tactics in labor disputes."

Inside the NLRB headquarters, the issue of intimidation was at the center of a hearing over a government proposal to streamline union-organizing elections. Among other things, the NLRB has proposed cutting the number of days between when a union files to hold an organizing election and when ballots are cast. The current median is 38 days, but could be cut to as few as 10 days if the measure passes.

Big Government:

Republican lawmakers who have expressed concern over the power and influence of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have offered up some compelling proposals. Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), the chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, has for example, said that he considering legislation that would block President Obama's team of unelected lawyers from revamping union election rules.

That's a good start, but Congress as a whole must move decisively to reclaim constitutional authority that was surrendered during the "Progressive Era" of the late 19th and early 20th century. Matthew Spalding, a particularly astute legal scholar with the Heritage Foundation, has testified at some length on the use of czars within the Obama Administration and how this relates back to progressive ambitions. In many respects, the NLRB fits with extra-constitutional schemes the disadvantage the free market and dilute the policy making authority of elected officials.

In June, the three Democrats who sit on the Board proposed rule changes that would curtail the amount of time for private union elections. Brian Hayes, the only Republican member of the board, has been sharply critical of the proposal, but his input has been limited.

Wall Street Journal (paid subscription required):

One benefit of the squeeze on state and local budgets is that politicians are finally having to confront their sweetheart deals with labor unions. The latest reform movement is moving against project labor agreements, or PLAs, that limit bids on construction projects to contractors that agree to union representation.

Only about 13% of construction workers belong to unions, and PLAs are a union invention to use their political muscle to organize more companies. Proponents argue that PLAs ensure the speed and quality of construction plans. But PLAs are one of the reasons that Boston's Big Dig was estimated at $2.8 billion but eventually cost $22 billion. Studies show that projects under PLA contracts on average cost 12% to 18% more than projects awarded by open, competitive bidding. Taxpayers pick up much of this tab.

The case of New York City is instructive. In 2009, the city's construction union and the association of builders agreed to an Economic Recovery Project Labor Agreement in the name of lowering costs and unfreezing construction halted during the recession. Some projects such as Frank Gehry's 76-story Beekman Tower did start, only to see costs skyrocket. According to the New York State Comptroller, wages have risen 12% city-wide, more than three times inflation. Contractors say strict union job classifications mean they have to employ superfluous workers. Many projects have frozen again, as PLA contracts expire and builders balk at new ones.

From the Washington Examiner: No union, including SEIU, should be above the law

Red State:

This week, on Monday and Tuesday, an "open meeting" occurred at President Obama's National Labor Relations Board over the NLRB’s proposal to move toward ambush elections. Though largely a waste of time, since the union appointees running the NLRB have little intent to listen to the practical side of labor relations and will do the unions' bidding, there is a simple solution to resolving this entire matter that is straightforward, fair and apolitical.

Here's the background: For the last five years, there has been a bill in Congress that unions have pushed using deceptively biased and flawed data. The hallucinogencially-named Employee Free Choice Act, if enacted, would effectively strip employees of their right to a secret-ballot election on the issue of unionization. With the process known as "card check" as a key component, the job-killing legislation passed the House of Representatives in 2007 but stalled in the Senate, yet has had employers on edge since it was first introduced.

Since card check has laid comatose following the election of Sen. Scott Brown [R-MA] in February 2010, several states have passed amendments to their state constitutions preserving the secret ballot, only to be later sued by Obama's union appointees at the NLRB.

In addition, as it has largely fallen upon the union extremists at the NLRB to make it easier for union bosses to unionize companies on, the NLRB has been busy reinterpreting cases for their union handlers.

National Review Online:

When Congress created the NLRB, I doubt that it meant for the agency to declare war on American business. Likewise, no one in Congress assumed the FTC would launch a crusade targeting the most successful American companies. Did anyone in Congress guess, when it created the Energy Department, that it would take as its priority mission to reduce the amount of energy resources available to Americans? And did anyone in Congress ever guess that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would work day and night to drive a stake through the heart of American industry?

The worst part of it is that none of the bureaucrats making these economy-crushing decisions can be held accountable for their actions. We can't vote the NLRB's gang of four out of office. We can't throw out the heads of the EPA, the Energy Department, the FTC, or any other regulatory agency. And even if we could, the tens of thousands of bureaucrats they command would continue churning out new regulations from now until doomsday.

Daily Caller:

Adam Smith described an "invisible hand" that, in a free market economy, fosters growth based on competition, supply and demand, and private decision-making. But the economy produces winners and losers, and given the latest jobs report — indicating unemployment surged to 9.2 percent last month — the U.S. needs more winners: companies making smart investment decisions, producing things more people want, and providing more jobs for American employees.

Unfortunately, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is applying a different "invisible hand" in litigation against Boeing that would invalidate fundamental investment decisions and adversely affect thousands of jobs.

This story starts with good news. Unparalleled demand exists for Boeing's long-awaited 787 Dreamliner, which far exceeds the capacity of Boeing's primary Dreamliner assembly line in Washington State, where Boeing has 25,000 unionized employees. Demand is so strong that Boeing created a second assembly line in South Carolina, where more than 1,000 employees have been hired.

This is where the NLRB is playing its own hand. It alleges that Boeing's investment in South Carolina constitutes an illegal transfer away from Boeing's unionized Washington State operations. Labor lawyers call this a "runaway shop." Yet, in Boeing's case, no "shop" has run away — business is booming at the Washington State facilities, no work has been removed, and employment has increased.