Marathon Pundit: NLRB overreach, 9/12 edition

Monday, September 12, 2011

NLRB overreach, 9/12 edition

Mitt Romney is headed to the Boeing plant in South Carolina today.

From the Charleston Post and Courier:

White House hopeful Mitt Romney will wade into the union fight over the Boeing Company's decision to locate in right-to-work South Carolina when he delivers a policy speech on labor after he tours the North Charleston plant Monday.

Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, will tour the facility in advance of the presidential debate in Tampa, Fla., later that day. Romney said at a GOP presidential forum in Columbia on Labor Day that union is not a bad word in itself, but the powerful labor organizations need to be kept in check.

The lawsuit that the National Labor Relations Board brought against Boeing for locating in South Carolina, considered an anti-union state by some, is the best example of why Romney wants to reverse the labor policies put forward by President Barack Obama, according to Romney's campaign.

Gov. Nikki Haley said she welcomes Romney's visit and his ideas. Haley, also a Republican, has been adamant in her fight against the labor board for its complaint against Boeing.

From Politico's Morning Money blog:

FIRST LOOK: U.S. OVERREGULATED? - From a Tarrance Group poll out later today from Public Notice: "Three quarters (74%) of voters throughout the country believe that businesses and consumers are over-regulated. Further, another two thirds (67%) believe that regulations have increased over the past few years. These percentages include majorities of all partisan affiliations, with 91% of Republicans, 75% of Independents and 58% of Democrats saying businesses/consumers are over-regulated. ... A key fear among voters is that regulations will hinder job creation, as most believe the result of new regulation will be either job losses (47%) or increased prices for American made goods and services (22%)." http://bit.ly/pyVbgZ

National Review Online's Corner blog:

On Thursday, union longshoremen closed a port in Longview, Washington, took security guards hostage, damaged rail cars, and dumped a shipment of grain — all because the owner of the terminal was using a contractor whose workers belonged to a rival union. Longview police chief Jim Duscha said, "A lot of the protesters were telling us this is only the start."

Are these the tactics that Teamsters president James P. Hoffa had in mind on Labor Day when he called for a war? On Monday, Hoffa declared war on the Tea Party. Hoffa opened for President Obama by saying that the Tea Party has "got a war, they got a war with us and . . . we're going to win that war." He added, "President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong." [sic]

Hoffa's declaration culminated weeks of attacks made by Democrats on Tea Party activists. On August 22, Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) told supporters in California (many dressed in purple SEIU t-shirts), "[As] far as I'm concerned, the 'Tea Party' can go straight to Hell." Also in August, Rep. Andre Carson (D., Ind.) told the Congressional Black Caucus, "Some of them in Congress right now of this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me . . . hanging on a tree." Vice President Joe Biden went so far as to compare the Tea Party to terrorists, and at a Labor Day speech he told a union audience that they are "the only folks keeping the barbarians from the gates."

Neither Obama nor any major Democrat has denounced this rhetoric. On Fox News, Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz refused to condemn Hoffa's statement.

The Hill:

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) has sued the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to stop a new regulation by the board that would require employers to post notices informing their workers of their right to organize a union.

Filed Thursday in in the U.S. District Court in Washington, NAM's lawsuit says the labor board is acting out of its jurisdiction and should suspend the rule. The legal action comes as the NLRB increasingly comes under more scrutiny from Republican lawmakers, who have been angered by several of the board's decisions this year.

In a statement, Jay Timmons, NAM's president and CEO, said the rule is "just another example of the board's aggressive overreach to insert itself into the day-to-day decisions of businesses — exerting powers it doesn't have."

Timmons said, "The growing list of burdensome actions from the NLRB is causing great uncertainty among manufacturers at a time when our economy is struggling to recover. We are committed to fighting this rule in order to rein in the NLRB. We also are encouraging Congress to act soon to stop this rogue agency."

The Washington Times:

A few unelected officials in downtown Washington are rapidly accomplishing what 535 men and women in Congress refused to do.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has launched an aggressive agenda and is well on its way to achieving the goals of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a wide-ranging bill that would have reshaped the labor system in the United States.

Although the EFCA was a priority of organized labor, it never won the approval of Congress - even when one party controlled the House, Senate and White House. But who needs Congress when an ideological agency is at the ready?

The NLRB has long been a lightning rod. It's true the agency is independent. The board members don't have to answer to the president. But the president puts them there, and they clearly can bring an agenda with them. With gridlock in Congress, the board can fill the breach left by the legislature and make policy that could never survive the democratic process.

Red State:

In less than two weeks, on September 21st, the public comment period will be closing on a Department of Labor scheme to have employers report the amount of money paid to outside vendors (namely, attorneys, PR firms, website developers, video firms, polling firms and just about every type of communications and human resource consultant) as newly-minted "persuaders."

Once the public comment closes, and because too few people really understand the ramifications to have made comments so far, Hilda Solis and her union cronies inside the Department of Labor will likely issue the new regulations and the union political witch hunt will begin.

You see, the information paid by an employer to anyone of these vendors will then be made available to the public—to unions, to be more precise. Think of it as the DISCLOSE Act for private sector businesses. More importantly, because its a criminal offense not to file disclosure forms with the DOL, failure to file could lead to jail time for the newly-named 'persuaders' and the employers who hire them.

For those who already filed with the Department of Labor, the added paperwork will be cumbersome. However, that may very well be worth it when those close to the Democratic Party realize that Hilda and her union cohorts will have caught them up in her new regulations as well.