Marathon Pundit: Post-July 4 NLRB-Boeing overreach roundup

Tuesday, July 05, 2011

Post-July 4 NLRB-Boeing overreach roundup

Morton Grove July 4 parade

Mother's Day has passed, Memorial Day and Father's Day are in the rear-view mirror, and now Independence Day is.

And the National Labor Relations Labor Board overreach continues.

Reason.com wonders if Obama has soured on the NLRB-Boeing dispute. The National Review's Campaign Spot blog thinks Virginia Democratic US Senate candidate Tim Kaine is echoing President Obama's vague response to the union controversy. And unions are battling each other with bullying tactics in a separate aviation industry case. Workers were not given a "no-union" option.

Boeing wants to build its Dreamliner 787 in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. Did you know that these states have better workforces?

From the Washington Examiner:

The strongest remaining argument that labor unions are relevant or desirable is that they provide business with a better-trained and more knowledgeable work force. But as quaint as it is to think of organized labor as the guardian of know-how and quality, it just isn't so, according to a new CNBC ranking of "America's top states for business." The survey, which considered the work forces of all 50 states, found that the downsides of unionism far outweigh any advantages when it comes to work force quality.

Incredibly, 17 of the top 18 states ranked by CNBC in terms of "work force" are "right-to-work" states, where unions are significantly less powerful. In states with right-to-work laws, workers cannot be compelled to pay union dues, and workers are far less likely to let unions represent them if they are actually given the choice. In CNBC's survey, all 22 of the nation's right-to-work states (mostly states in the South and West) made the top 25 in terms of quality of work force. In the separate category of business friendliness, which gauged states' regulatory and legal environments, 10 of the top 15 states were right-to-work states as well. Needless to say, the combination of good workers and congenial business climates make these states highly attractive to business.

Obama has made the survival of unions a much higher priority for his administration than sustainable job growth, beginning with the bailout of the automakers and continuing most recently with his National Labor Relations Board's persecution of Boeing for expanding its manufacturing operations in the right-to-work state of South Carolina. It is sad, although perhaps not surprising, that Obama would subordinate the interests of 93 percent of American workers to those of one politically favored group, but this is precisely what he is doing. The 93 percent would do well to take notice in the coming elections.

Three senators, including Georgia's Johnny Isakson, oppose union "quickie" elections.

From Isakson's web site:

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Ranking Member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, joined with fellow committee members Senators Orin Hatch (R-Utah) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) today to call on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to delay the public hearing on the agency's proposed rules to allow "quickie elections" for unions and allow for an extension of time to prepare testimony and file comments.

"The current scheduling for the sole public hearing on this rulemaking does not provide sufficient time for stakeholders to determine if they will participate and prepare testimony," the senators wrote. "The Board announced on Monday, June 27 that interested stakeholders must notify the Board by Friday, July 1 of their intent to speak at the public hearing. This time period is unreasonable and without justification. Interested stakeholders will require more time to become aware of and familiar with the proposed regulation and to prepare for the public hearing. The time-frame you have established will prevent the views of stakeholders who were not aware of this rulemaking before it was announced from being heard."

The senators also requested an extension of time to file comments on the proposed rule. Currently, comments are due on August 22. They noted that these proposals involve highly complex issues that require stakeholders to spend time analyzing the effect these proposals have. They said that limiting the time in which stakeholders can submit comments for such a complicated and irregular rulemaking and then providing stakeholders with less than five days to decide whether to participate in the public hearing is simply inappropriate.

"Such a condensed timeline is also unparalleled among similarly significant rulemaking proposals from other federal agencies in recent years," wrote the senators. "The Board has not justified the need for an expedited comment period. At a June 24 congressional staff briefing, an NLRB attorney stated that a 60-day comment period was appropriate because amending election procedure is a fairly routine practice of the Board. Yet, you have stated publicly that the proposed rule is 'controversial.' We believe that, due to the significant legal questions involved and the controversial nature of the proposal, stakeholders should have more than minimal time to decide whether to participate in public hearings and to prepare comments for submission."

The letter can be read in its entirety here.