Scott Walker’s recent victory in Wisconsin proves that Americans are starting to question union control of the workplace. But the struggle against Big Labor is just starting.
President Obama stacked the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the independent agency charged with mediating union elections and enforcing labor laws, with former union cronies from the Service Employees International Union. Instead of protecting workers and enforcing fair elections, the NLRB is doing exactly the opposite.
This is a major blow to employers and the employees exercising their choice not to join a union. Thankfully, Congress is considering the Employee Rights Act, which will put a check on the power of labor unions.
Take action today and urge your representatives in Congress to support the Employee Rights Act and put the power back in the hands of employees—not union bosses.
The Employee Rights Act will give workers the choice of whether their dues money should go toward political purposes that they don’t support. The Employee Rights Act will also protect the secret ballot instead of allowing “card check” style elections where employees can be coerced.
When politics get in the way and unions are given unchecked power, it hurts workers’ rights and businesses’ bottom lines. It’s time to stop big labor bosses from hurting employees.
Take action today and urge your representatives in Congress to support the Employee Rights Act and put the power back in the hands of employees—not union bosses.
Sincerely,
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Prosperity® (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen leaders committed to advancing every individual's right to economic freedom and opportunity. AFP believes reducing the size and scope of government is the best safeguard to ensuring individual productivity and prosperity for all Americans. AFP educates and engages citizens in support of restraining state and federal government growth, and returning government to its constitutional limits. AFP has more than 2,000,000 members, including members in all 50 states, and 34 state chapters and affiliates. More than 95,000 Americans in all 50 states have made a financial investment in AFP or AFP Foundation. For more information, visit www.americansforprosperity.org
Showing posts with label NLRB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NLRB. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
MEMO: Obama ‘Recess’ appointments Unwarranted, Unnecessary and Unconstitutional
On January 4, President Obama purported to appoint three individuals to be members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) (two of whom were only nominated two weeks before and had not even completed the necessary questionnaire required by Senate) and one person to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). All of these positions require confirmation by the U.S. Senate.
ISSUE-IN-BRIEF: The Constitution allows the President to make “recess Appointments—bypassing the Senate under only one circumstance: “The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.” But the Senate did not adjourn its session and still had officers to receive nominations from the President. Again, the Constitution is very clear on this point: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.” In December the House did not consent to the Senate taking a recess.
There are three objections to what are basically illegal appointments by President Obama:
CONTINUED:
http://netrightdaily.com/2012/02/memo-obama-recess-appointments-unwarranted-unnecessary-and-unconstitutional/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NetrightDaily+%28NetRight+Daily%29
ISSUE-IN-BRIEF: The Constitution allows the President to make “recess Appointments—bypassing the Senate under only one circumstance: “The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.” But the Senate did not adjourn its session and still had officers to receive nominations from the President. Again, the Constitution is very clear on this point: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.” In December the House did not consent to the Senate taking a recess.
There are three objections to what are basically illegal appointments by President Obama:
CONTINUED:
http://netrightdaily.com/2012/02/memo-obama-recess-appointments-unwarranted-unnecessary-and-unconstitutional/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NetrightDaily+%28NetRight+Daily%29
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Obama Recess Appointments Face Legal Challenge
Two pro-business advocacy groups on Friday filed the first legal challenge to President Barack Obama's recent recess appointments, asking a federal judge to find them unconstitutional.
The National Federation of Independent Business and the National Right to Work Foundation argue Obama cannot legally bypass the Senate to appoint three new members of the National Labor Relations Board, an agency that referees labor-management disputes.
The groups made the argument in a motion in federal district court in Washington, D.C., as part of an ongoing lawsuit against the labor board for requiring businesses to put up posters telling workers about their right to form a union.
The challenge came a day after the Justice Department issued a legal opinion defending the appointments of the labor board members, and the appointment of a national consumer watchdog, against Republican criticism.
Obama stoked controversy when he made the appointments Jan. 4 during the Senate's current 20-day recess. Republicans leaders have called it an unusual and unconstitutional power grab, saying the Senate was not technically in recess when Obama acted.
CONTINUED:http://www.newsmax.com/US/RecessAppointments-LegalChallenge/2012/01/13/id/424196?s=al&promo_code=DEF2-1#
The National Federation of Independent Business and the National Right to Work Foundation argue Obama cannot legally bypass the Senate to appoint three new members of the National Labor Relations Board, an agency that referees labor-management disputes.
The groups made the argument in a motion in federal district court in Washington, D.C., as part of an ongoing lawsuit against the labor board for requiring businesses to put up posters telling workers about their right to form a union.
The challenge came a day after the Justice Department issued a legal opinion defending the appointments of the labor board members, and the appointment of a national consumer watchdog, against Republican criticism.
Obama stoked controversy when he made the appointments Jan. 4 during the Senate's current 20-day recess. Republicans leaders have called it an unusual and unconstitutional power grab, saying the Senate was not technically in recess when Obama acted.
CONTINUED:http://www.newsmax.com/US/RecessAppointments-LegalChallenge/2012/01/13/id/424196?s=al&promo_code=DEF2-1#
The Washington Times: Union fight pits rights of free speech, private land
With a full complement of members after President Obama’s recent recess appointments, the National Labor Relations Board could soon rule on a closely watched labor law case with major implications for property rights, union organizing tactics and even what workers can write about on their company email accounts.
In 2005, Roundy's Supermarkets Inc., ordered members of the company’s construction union, the Milwaukee Building and Construction Trades Council, to leave its parking lots for urging customers to boycott the stores and shop elsewhere in the midst of a fierce labor dispute.
The union was upset that nonunion contractors, which the union claimed was not paying prevailing area standard wages and benefits, were building stores and expanding or remodeling existing stores for the Milwaukee-based chain.
The union set up protests in the parking lots at 26 Roundy's stores, both leased and company-owned sites. Protesters distributed handbills and offered coupons redeemable at competitor grocery stores.
After Roundy's officials ordered police to remove protesters who were not company employees, the union filed a complaint with the NLRB. The case has bounced between an administrative law judge and the agency, and legal analysts say the NLRB could issue a ruling this year. The agency declined to comment because the decision is pending.
Labor and management groups are closely watching the case, which pits basic rights to free speech and public protest against equally fundamental rights regarding private property.
The ruling is likely to set precedents for organizing battles.
CONTINUED:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/12/union-fight-pits-rights-of-free-speech-private-lan/
In 2005, Roundy's Supermarkets Inc., ordered members of the company’s construction union, the Milwaukee Building and Construction Trades Council, to leave its parking lots for urging customers to boycott the stores and shop elsewhere in the midst of a fierce labor dispute.
The union was upset that nonunion contractors, which the union claimed was not paying prevailing area standard wages and benefits, were building stores and expanding or remodeling existing stores for the Milwaukee-based chain.
The union set up protests in the parking lots at 26 Roundy's stores, both leased and company-owned sites. Protesters distributed handbills and offered coupons redeemable at competitor grocery stores.
After Roundy's officials ordered police to remove protesters who were not company employees, the union filed a complaint with the NLRB. The case has bounced between an administrative law judge and the agency, and legal analysts say the NLRB could issue a ruling this year. The agency declined to comment because the decision is pending.
Labor and management groups are closely watching the case, which pits basic rights to free speech and public protest against equally fundamental rights regarding private property.
The ruling is likely to set precedents for organizing battles.
CONTINUED:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/12/union-fight-pits-rights-of-free-speech-private-lan/
Friday, January 6, 2012
Morning Bell: Beneath Growth, a Sea of Poison
January 6, 2012
Today’s jobs report from the Department of Labor was encouraging news for the U.S. economy. It shows that 200,000 jobs were created and the unemployment rate ticked down from 8.7 percent to 8.5 percent. Jobs were created in every sector of the economy save one — government! This report is consistent with other economic indicators and shows that the economy is finally coming out of its malaise. But like any reports, they must be put into context. The creation of 200,000 new jobs is solid growth and above the 130,000 to 150,000 new jobs that must be created to keep up with population growth. However, this doesn’t mean happy times are here again.
There are not enough Americans working or looking for work. In fact participation in the labor force is at its lowest point in 30 years as many potential workers are not yet even attempting to find jobs. Moreover, at this stage in a recovery, new jobs should be surging instead of averaging less than 140,000 for the last three months. So all is not well and President Obama should not check the “mission accomplished” box. In fact, Obama’s painful economic policies will only serve to further hamstring America’s economic engine, thereby preventing a truly strong, vibrant economy that the country is capable of having.
The President single-handedly unleashed another poison pill on Wednesday with the White House’s announcement that he will exact another illegal, unconstitutional end-run around Congress with the appointment of three new members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) without Senate approval, all of whom are union officials. Here’s why that matters.
The NLRB is a five-member board that is responsible for investigating unfair labor practices, creating labor-related rules, and conducting elections for labor union representation. Last year the NLRB enacted measures shortening union elections to as little as 14 days, limiting employees’ ability to hear from both sides before they vote, allowing unions to cherry-pick which workers in a company can vote on unionizing, and preventing workers from insisting on a secret ballot in union drives, as Heritage’s James Sherk explains. These measures will make it much easier for unions to organize workers — but at the expense of workers’ rights. If workers want to join a union they have that right — management gets the union it deserves — but the government should not limit their rights in order to press workers into unionizing.
Prior to the President’s appointments, the NLRB had only three sitting members, with the one member’s term ending at the end of 2012. Were the NLRB to go down to two members, it wouldn’t have a quorum to conduct its business, meaning that the President’s Big Labor agenda couldn’t be enacted. Now, though, the President has appointed three new members who will undoubtedly carry out his agenda without any checks or balances.
And that agenda is to bolster America’s unions — a key constituency and political force standing behind the President. Unfortunately, their goal is not primarily to protect workers. The trouble is that the Big Labor agenda is fundamentally at odds with the pro-growth agenda that America is so thirsty for. Sherk explains:
CONTINUED:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/06/morning-bell-beneath-growth-a-sea-of-poison/
Today’s jobs report from the Department of Labor was encouraging news for the U.S. economy. It shows that 200,000 jobs were created and the unemployment rate ticked down from 8.7 percent to 8.5 percent. Jobs were created in every sector of the economy save one — government! This report is consistent with other economic indicators and shows that the economy is finally coming out of its malaise. But like any reports, they must be put into context. The creation of 200,000 new jobs is solid growth and above the 130,000 to 150,000 new jobs that must be created to keep up with population growth. However, this doesn’t mean happy times are here again.
There are not enough Americans working or looking for work. In fact participation in the labor force is at its lowest point in 30 years as many potential workers are not yet even attempting to find jobs. Moreover, at this stage in a recovery, new jobs should be surging instead of averaging less than 140,000 for the last three months. So all is not well and President Obama should not check the “mission accomplished” box. In fact, Obama’s painful economic policies will only serve to further hamstring America’s economic engine, thereby preventing a truly strong, vibrant economy that the country is capable of having.
The President single-handedly unleashed another poison pill on Wednesday with the White House’s announcement that he will exact another illegal, unconstitutional end-run around Congress with the appointment of three new members to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) without Senate approval, all of whom are union officials. Here’s why that matters.
The NLRB is a five-member board that is responsible for investigating unfair labor practices, creating labor-related rules, and conducting elections for labor union representation. Last year the NLRB enacted measures shortening union elections to as little as 14 days, limiting employees’ ability to hear from both sides before they vote, allowing unions to cherry-pick which workers in a company can vote on unionizing, and preventing workers from insisting on a secret ballot in union drives, as Heritage’s James Sherk explains. These measures will make it much easier for unions to organize workers — but at the expense of workers’ rights. If workers want to join a union they have that right — management gets the union it deserves — but the government should not limit their rights in order to press workers into unionizing.
Prior to the President’s appointments, the NLRB had only three sitting members, with the one member’s term ending at the end of 2012. Were the NLRB to go down to two members, it wouldn’t have a quorum to conduct its business, meaning that the President’s Big Labor agenda couldn’t be enacted. Now, though, the President has appointed three new members who will undoubtedly carry out his agenda without any checks or balances.
And that agenda is to bolster America’s unions — a key constituency and political force standing behind the President. Unfortunately, their goal is not primarily to protect workers. The trouble is that the Big Labor agenda is fundamentally at odds with the pro-growth agenda that America is so thirsty for. Sherk explains:
CONTINUED:
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/06/morning-bell-beneath-growth-a-sea-of-poison/
Monday, September 5, 2011
NLRB Heralds Labor Day with an Attack on Workers’ Rights
This week, just in time for Labor Day, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) handed down several decisions that undermine workers’ rights to tell union organizers “no.”
In one ruling, Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, the NLRB radically redefined the definition of a collective bargaining unit—the workers a union represents—to permit micro-unions. Traditionally, unions organize workers who share a community of interest. At a grocery store, for example, a collective bargaining unit would typically represent all the hourly employees.
The NLRB junked that definition in favor of a new standard: Now, instead of one union representing all workers with similar interests, unions could organize smaller micro-unions representing just a few workers. At a store this would allow separate unions to represent just the cashiers while leaving all other workers unorganized.
These rules will allow unions to gerrymander bargaining units to disenfranchise workers that oppose unionizing. If a union knows that the shelf-stockers would vote against unionizing, it can now propose a bargaining unit that excludes them. When the cashiers vote, the shelf-stockers would not get a say. However, the excluded workers would share in all the risks and downsides of unionizing. Strikes will also put them out of work, and if the union bankrupts the company, they will also lose their jobs.
The NLRB has decided that workers who do not want to take these risks will not get to vote. That certainly makes life easier for union organizers, but it hardly enhances workers’ rights.
In a second ruling, Lamons Gasket Co., the NLRB took another swipe at the secret ballot. Under current law, unions do not have to organize workers through secret ballot elections. If a company agrees to it, unions can solicit signatures on union authorization cards.
CONTINUED:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/02/nlrb-heralds-labor-day-with-an-attack-on-workers-rights/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
In one ruling, Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, the NLRB radically redefined the definition of a collective bargaining unit—the workers a union represents—to permit micro-unions. Traditionally, unions organize workers who share a community of interest. At a grocery store, for example, a collective bargaining unit would typically represent all the hourly employees.
The NLRB junked that definition in favor of a new standard: Now, instead of one union representing all workers with similar interests, unions could organize smaller micro-unions representing just a few workers. At a store this would allow separate unions to represent just the cashiers while leaving all other workers unorganized.
These rules will allow unions to gerrymander bargaining units to disenfranchise workers that oppose unionizing. If a union knows that the shelf-stockers would vote against unionizing, it can now propose a bargaining unit that excludes them. When the cashiers vote, the shelf-stockers would not get a say. However, the excluded workers would share in all the risks and downsides of unionizing. Strikes will also put them out of work, and if the union bankrupts the company, they will also lose their jobs.
The NLRB has decided that workers who do not want to take these risks will not get to vote. That certainly makes life easier for union organizers, but it hardly enhances workers’ rights.
In a second ruling, Lamons Gasket Co., the NLRB took another swipe at the secret ballot. Under current law, unions do not have to organize workers through secret ballot elections. If a company agrees to it, unions can solicit signatures on union authorization cards.
CONTINUED:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/02/nlrb-heralds-labor-day-with-an-attack-on-workers-rights/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Obama Stands In the Way of Job Creation, Where Does Governor Perdue Stand?
Will Governor Perdue Stand Up to Obama and Labor Unions to Protect North Carolina’s Economic Future? (I think we know the answer to that!)
For Immediate Release Contact: NCGOP Press Office
Thursday, July 28, 2011 (919) 424-5555
RALEIGH, NC – President Obama’s appointees at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have sued Boeing to prevent it from building a new plant in South Carolina, a right to work state. An editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal highlights the battle pitting Boeing, a private company committed to creating jobs, against the White House, the NLRB and their labor union allies.
In a statement, North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Robin Hayes urged Governor Perdue to step up and join other right to work governors in rejecting President Obama’s and the NLRB’s meddling with private companies and right to work states: “A number of governors in right to work states have stepped up to protect jobs. What is Governor Perdue waiting for? Now is the time for Governor Beverly Perdue to show real leadership by calling on President Obama to oppose the NLRB’s gross overreach and protect North Carolina’s economic future.”
The White House vs. Boeing
Wall Street Journal Editorial
July 28, 2011
Teenagers in the 1960s listened to Beatles records backwards in search of hidden meanings—a trick akin to the task of deciphering President Obama's statements on the battle between Boeing and the National Labor Relations Board. Since the NLRB sued the airplane company in April to prevent it from building a new plant in South Carolina, Mr. Obama's position has alternated between silent and incomprehensible.
At a press conference in June, the mellifluous one said he felt that "as a general proposition, companies need to have the freedom to relocate." In case anyone mistook that as a full-throated defense of a business's right to expand its operations and hire workers in any state it likes, Mr. Obama also emphasized that the NLRB is an "independent" agency and that the issue is being decided by a judge.
Finally on Tuesday, we got the straight story. In a formal statement of Administration policy, the White House opposed a bill sponsored by South Carolina Rep. Tim Scott that would reduce the power of the NLRB and prohibit it "from ordering any employer to relocate, shut down, or transfer employment under any circumstance." Translation: Mr. Obama intends to guard the NLRB for his union allies, but if no one notices, all the better.
In opposing the bill, the White House says "The [National Labor Relations Act] does not restrict the location of company operations, provided companies comply with the law." But companies don't live in this land of hypotheticals. The NLRB lawsuit is an explicit attempt to block Boeing from opening its new South Carolina factory, and either the Administration believes the NLRB is appropriately enforcing the law, or it believes the NLRB has exceeded its mandate and needs to be reined in. Now we know it's on the side of the NLRB, which is run by Mr. Obama's appointees.
As politics, the NLRB issue is a doozy for Democrats, who know that few voters will countenance a policy of punishing business for building plants and creating jobs in their states. In Virginia, Republican George Allen has been pressing the question with Tim Kaine, his opponent for an open Senate seat next year. If Mr. Scott's bill passes the House, Senate Democrats running for re-election will also be on the spot.
The NLRB's campaign against Boeing has captured political attention—and created business anxiety—because it is a government attempt to restrict the free movement of capital. It attempts to punish workers merely because their states passed right-to-work laws.
This strikes millions of people as contrary to the kind of freedom that America was founded on. The Administration has thrown its lot squarely with the unions, and full marks to Mr. Scott for forcing Mr. Obama finally to declare himself.
URL: http://www.ncgop.org/Stand-Up-to-NLRB
For Immediate Release Contact: NCGOP Press Office
Thursday, July 28, 2011 (919) 424-5555
RALEIGH, NC – President Obama’s appointees at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have sued Boeing to prevent it from building a new plant in South Carolina, a right to work state. An editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal highlights the battle pitting Boeing, a private company committed to creating jobs, against the White House, the NLRB and their labor union allies.
In a statement, North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Robin Hayes urged Governor Perdue to step up and join other right to work governors in rejecting President Obama’s and the NLRB’s meddling with private companies and right to work states: “A number of governors in right to work states have stepped up to protect jobs. What is Governor Perdue waiting for? Now is the time for Governor Beverly Perdue to show real leadership by calling on President Obama to oppose the NLRB’s gross overreach and protect North Carolina’s economic future.”
The White House vs. Boeing
Wall Street Journal Editorial
July 28, 2011
Teenagers in the 1960s listened to Beatles records backwards in search of hidden meanings—a trick akin to the task of deciphering President Obama's statements on the battle between Boeing and the National Labor Relations Board. Since the NLRB sued the airplane company in April to prevent it from building a new plant in South Carolina, Mr. Obama's position has alternated between silent and incomprehensible.
At a press conference in June, the mellifluous one said he felt that "as a general proposition, companies need to have the freedom to relocate." In case anyone mistook that as a full-throated defense of a business's right to expand its operations and hire workers in any state it likes, Mr. Obama also emphasized that the NLRB is an "independent" agency and that the issue is being decided by a judge.
Finally on Tuesday, we got the straight story. In a formal statement of Administration policy, the White House opposed a bill sponsored by South Carolina Rep. Tim Scott that would reduce the power of the NLRB and prohibit it "from ordering any employer to relocate, shut down, or transfer employment under any circumstance." Translation: Mr. Obama intends to guard the NLRB for his union allies, but if no one notices, all the better.
In opposing the bill, the White House says "The [National Labor Relations Act] does not restrict the location of company operations, provided companies comply with the law." But companies don't live in this land of hypotheticals. The NLRB lawsuit is an explicit attempt to block Boeing from opening its new South Carolina factory, and either the Administration believes the NLRB is appropriately enforcing the law, or it believes the NLRB has exceeded its mandate and needs to be reined in. Now we know it's on the side of the NLRB, which is run by Mr. Obama's appointees.
As politics, the NLRB issue is a doozy for Democrats, who know that few voters will countenance a policy of punishing business for building plants and creating jobs in their states. In Virginia, Republican George Allen has been pressing the question with Tim Kaine, his opponent for an open Senate seat next year. If Mr. Scott's bill passes the House, Senate Democrats running for re-election will also be on the spot.
The NLRB's campaign against Boeing has captured political attention—and created business anxiety—because it is a government attempt to restrict the free movement of capital. It attempts to punish workers merely because their states passed right-to-work laws.
This strikes millions of people as contrary to the kind of freedom that America was founded on. The Administration has thrown its lot squarely with the unions, and full marks to Mr. Scott for forcing Mr. Obama finally to declare himself.
URL: http://www.ncgop.org/Stand-Up-to-NLRB
Friday, July 1, 2011
Lou Calling: Something wicked this way comes…
June 29th
The Sun Journal
Letter to the Editor
Something wicked this way comes…
Creeping Socialism has been the hallmark of the Obama administration and the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) is just another cog in the wheel. Consider this: in 2009, the Boeing airline manufacturer announced it would open a plant in South Carolina, providing employment for 1,000 men and women.
Big labor bosses at the International Assoc. of Machinists Union filed an Unfair Labor Practice against Boeing demanding that the plant be shut down. South Carolina, like our own State, is a right to work State.The NLRB comes into all of this when their acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, filed a complaint against Boeing to stop the building of the plant and force Boeing to transfer the manufacturing to Washington -a forced union State.
There is a bill before the Senate (S.964) that simply states that employers have the right to open businesses and hire workers wherever they think it makes sense to do so. The Obama bureaucrats at the NLRB will be prevented from suing them from making sound economic decisions to move to a Right to work State.
That this is happening in our Country, is hard to believe yet it comes as no surprise to many of us. There is a cancer in the white house that must be removed and this is just one more example of why moderates, independents and conservatives must join together and present a united front in 2012. If we fail, the Nation that you and I grew up in, the Nation that so many died protecting will cease to exist.
CCTA Member, Louis Call
River Bend, NC
The Sun Journal
Letter to the Editor
Something wicked this way comes…
Creeping Socialism has been the hallmark of the Obama administration and the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) is just another cog in the wheel. Consider this: in 2009, the Boeing airline manufacturer announced it would open a plant in South Carolina, providing employment for 1,000 men and women.
Big labor bosses at the International Assoc. of Machinists Union filed an Unfair Labor Practice against Boeing demanding that the plant be shut down. South Carolina, like our own State, is a right to work State.The NLRB comes into all of this when their acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, filed a complaint against Boeing to stop the building of the plant and force Boeing to transfer the manufacturing to Washington -a forced union State.
There is a bill before the Senate (S.964) that simply states that employers have the right to open businesses and hire workers wherever they think it makes sense to do so. The Obama bureaucrats at the NLRB will be prevented from suing them from making sound economic decisions to move to a Right to work State.
That this is happening in our Country, is hard to believe yet it comes as no surprise to many of us. There is a cancer in the white house that must be removed and this is just one more example of why moderates, independents and conservatives must join together and present a united front in 2012. If we fail, the Nation that you and I grew up in, the Nation that so many died protecting will cease to exist.
CCTA Member, Louis Call
River Bend, NC
Friday, April 22, 2011
The Newest Labor War: Union, Feds Attack Boeing
Did the NLRB bite off more Carolina BBQ than it can chew?
The National Labor Relations Board (OBAMA SUPPORTING UNIONS) wants to prevent Boeing, a private company, from building its new 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, a right to work state.
If the NLRB thought this would be an easy task, it was wrong, and also insane. Sen. Jim DeMint is angry. The move, he says, is "nothing more than a political favor for the unions who are supporting President Obama's reelection campaign." DeMint is going to "use every tool at my disposal to stop the president from carrying out this malicious act." Hell, even the South's most delicate senator is upset. Sen. Lindsey Graham said the NLRB's scheme is "one of the worst cases of unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of special interest groups that I've ever seen." The bolt munchers at the International Association of Machinists District 571, meanwhile, are hailing this as "a victory for all American workers." Oh, except for the workers in South Carolina, where the unemployment rate is hovering around 10 percent.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/04/22/boeing_nrlb_unions_labor_government_white_house_obama_administration_south_carolina_109635.html
The National Labor Relations Board (OBAMA SUPPORTING UNIONS) wants to prevent Boeing, a private company, from building its new 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, a right to work state.
If the NLRB thought this would be an easy task, it was wrong, and also insane. Sen. Jim DeMint is angry. The move, he says, is "nothing more than a political favor for the unions who are supporting President Obama's reelection campaign." DeMint is going to "use every tool at my disposal to stop the president from carrying out this malicious act." Hell, even the South's most delicate senator is upset. Sen. Lindsey Graham said the NLRB's scheme is "one of the worst cases of unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of special interest groups that I've ever seen." The bolt munchers at the International Association of Machinists District 571, meanwhile, are hailing this as "a victory for all American workers." Oh, except for the workers in South Carolina, where the unemployment rate is hovering around 10 percent.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/04/22/boeing_nrlb_unions_labor_government_white_house_obama_administration_south_carolina_109635.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
