Marathon Pundit: NLRB overreach, SEIU intimidation edition

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has been aggresive in his attempts to get the slippery Craig Becker, an NLRB board member recess-appointed by President Obama, to answer basic questions.

From a Hatch press release:

U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) today wrote to National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member and former Service Employees International Union (SEIU) official Craig Becker to inquire about his involvement in union intimidation efforts. The letter sent to Becker comes after the SEIU's "Contract Campaign Manual" was made public. The handbook tells union members to purposefully try to damage their employers' reputations by coming up with allegations against their employers and managers and to even break the law to gain leverage in contract negotiations.

In the letter, Hatch writes that, "the manual explicitly advises union members to engage in tactics designed to attack the reputation of an employer as well as its managers and to purposefully damage an employer's relationship with vendors and customers." In addition, it advises employees to uncover "dirt" on management officials and publicize the information in order to obtain leverage in contract negotiations. The manual even goes so far as to encourage union members to disobey certain laws when it serves the union’s purposes."

This is not the first time Hatch has tried to get answers from Becker regarding his involvement with disconcerting union intimidation tactics. During a hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last year, Hatch repeatedly pressed Becker regarding his involvement in similar tactics such as union corporate campaigns, but Becker refused to address Hatch's concerns.

In today's letter, Hatch asked Becker several specific questions regarding his involvement with the SEIU manual, including inquiring about his involvement in drafting and implementing the instructions in the manual, if he’s ever instructed clients to break the law, and if he believes the tactics detailed in the guidebook are appropriate actions for union members to take during contract negotiations.

Below is the full text of Hatch's letter to Becker:

September 12, 2011

The Honorable Craig Becker
Member
National Labor Relations Board
1099 14th St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20570

Dear Member Becker:

I am writing to inquire about your role in drafting controversial documents distributed by your former employer, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Given the Senate’s oversight role over the NLRB as well as your pending re-nomination to the Board, I hope that you will give prompt and complete answers to the questions presented.

According to several recent news reports, some controversial documents have come to light in the course of SEIU's current litigation with Sudexo, Inc., including a "Contract Campaign Manual," which provides details regarding the strategies employed by the union during organizing and contract campaigns. Among other things, the manual explicitly advises union members to engage in tactics designed to attack the reputation of an employer as well as its managers and to purposefully damage an employer's relationship with vendors and customers. In addition, it advises employees to uncover "dirt" on management officials and publicize the information in order to obtain leverage in contract negotiations. The manual even goes so far as to encourage union members to disobey certain laws when it serves the union’s purposes.

During your initial confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in July 2009, I asked you many questions, both in person and in writing, regarding the use of "corporate campaigns" on the part of unions and organizers. At no point in any of your answers did you disclose your opinion about the propriety of "corporate campaign" tactics or any information regarding your role in advising union members that engage in these tactics. Due to these recent revelations, I believe more information is necessary.

Therefore, with regard to recently-publicized "Contract Campaign Manual," I have the following questions:

1) What role, if any, did you play in the drafting or approval of the manual?

2) Have you ever advised any client to engage in the questionable tactics outlined in the manual, including tactics specifically designed to personally embarrass or intimidate employers or managers, jeopardize employer relationships with customers and vendors, and purposefully disrupt production in the workplace?

3) Have you ever advised any client that it is permissible to break the law in the course of an organizing or contract campaign?

4) In your view, are the campaign tactics detailed in the SEIU manual appropriate actions for union members to take in the midst of organizing campaigns or contract negotiations?

I am deeply concerned about the current direction of the NLRB. While I do not doubt your competency or your talents, I believe the publication of these documents further calls into question your objectivity in addressing and adjudicating matters dealing with labor-management relations and union representation. Once again, I hope you will shed more light on these issues by providing prompt and complete answers to these questions.

Thank you for your attention regarding this matter.

Sincerely

Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator

From the Daily Caller:

Fred Wszolek of the Workforce Fairness Institute told TheDC that if President Obama really wanted a bipartisan plan to move the economy forward and create jobs, he should be offering to cut regulations. Wszolek said Obama needs to act now, and stop all his administration’s new rules and regulations.

"If the President is looking for a bipartisan plan to get the economy moving, he needs to look no further than ending the regulatory blitz coming from his own administration," Wszolek said. "It is striking that even a majority of Democrats think the Obama administration has over-regulated our economy. And the best place to start correcting this mistake is at the National Labor Relations Board."

The House is pushing back against the NLRB. First, from the Knoxville News:

U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais is trying to head off a new workplace rule that will require employers to prominently display posters containing information about a worker's right to unionize and bargain collectively.

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN)

DesJarlais, R-Jasper, Tenn., filed legislation Monday that would repeal the new rule, which was finalized last month by the National Labor Relations Board. Under the rule, most employers will have to start posting the information on Nov. 14.

"It is unacceptable for the NLRB to force businesses to display posters that serve as nothing more than a de factor endorsement of unionization by the federal government," DesJarlais said.

DesJarlais called the rule an "arbitrary mandate" and derided it as "another favor for big labor made possible by their friends in the Obama administration."

Next, from AP:

House Republicans, angry over the government's labor dispute with Boeing Co., are taking up a bill that would prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any company to close plants or relocate workers, even if a company flouts labor laws.

The measure would undercut a high-profile lawsuit filed in April that accuses Boeing of violating labor laws by opening a new production line for its 787 airplane in right-to-work South Carolina. The board says Boeing is punishing unionized Washington state workers for past strikes.

Boeing has vigorously denied the allegations, claiming the move was an economic decision. Business groups claim the board has overstepped its bounds, and say no agency should have the right to dictate where a company can or cannot create jobs.

While the bill is likely to pass the GOP-controlled House when it comes up for a vote Thursday, it is not expected to gain traction in the Senate, where Democratic leaders strongly oppose it. The Obama administration and labor groups say the bill would cripple the government's ability to enforce labor laws.

A defender of the free market is taking the airwaves to fight back against the overreach. From The Hill:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a radio ad campaign Monday against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Labor Department for what they call burdensome regulations.

The Chamber is running the ads in four states -- Florida, Missouri, Montana, and Virginia. The campaign comes as the House plans to vote this week on legislation that will prohibit the labor board from requiring a company to relocate its employment.

"When Congress failed to pass the card-check bill, we knew it was only a matter of time before the administration began using the regulatory process to tilt the playing field in organized labor's favor," said Randy Johnson, the Chamber's senior vice president of labor, immigration, and employee benefits, in a statement. "Washington's focus should be on economic growth and job creation."

Phil Kerpen in National Review Online:

The Obama administration appears intent on using back-door means to accomplish every element of the extreme legislative agenda that the American people decisively rejected in the 2010 midterm election. Nearly every agency has been in on the act, but perhaps the most egregious behavior has been that of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which is pursuing not just what was in the failed "card check" legislation, but a frontal assault on the right to work in America. This week, we'll find out which members of Congress are willing to stand up to this rogue agency.

In a chilling April 20, 2011, complaint, the NLRB's acting (not Senate-confirmed) general counsel, Lafe Solomon, asked the board to order Boeing to move the second production facility of its 787 Dreamliner — already built in South Carolina at a multibillion-dollar cost — to union-friendly Washington. The case is currently before an NLRB administrative-law judge; the NLRB itself will hear the case on appeal, and the federal court system will handle further appeals.

This came during a protracted negotiation between Boeing and the machinists' union, which had been demanding a seat on the board of directors and a so-called neutrality agreement that would allow them to use card check to unionize more Boeing employees.

Factually, the complaint is groundless. "Can you name me a single, solitary worker in Washington State who has lost their job as a result of Boeing's decision to build a separate, distinct line in Charleston?" Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.) recently asked in a field hearing on the issue. "Not at this time," Solomon replied.

But the frivolity of the complaint is unlikely to matter if the case is appealed to the NLRB. The union will almost certainly win, because two of the board's three members, Craig Becker and Mark Pearce, are Obama-appointed union lawyers. Both were recess-appointed, although Pearce was later confirmed on a voice vote in a deal that also confirmed Brian Hayes, the one Republican on the board. Becker and Pearce both worked for the Service Employees International Union. Becker is infamous for writing, "Employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees’ election of representatives." His nomination was rejected on a bipartisan Senate vote, but Obama installed him anyway.