Senate Moving Forward Against NLRB?
posted at 10:40 am on May 5, 2011 by Jazz Shaw
Yesterday, when we featured a video of Senator Lindsey Graham speaking out against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and their involvement with Boeing, one commenter posed a question.
I wonder what SC’s other Senator (Jim DeMint) has to say on this issue?
Ask and ye shall receive. Senator DeMint just published a letter being sent to President Obama on this subject.
President must fix the NLRB
Dear President Obama:
In your State of the Union address, you said: “We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business.”
We agree.
Global competition for business and jobs is more important than ever as our country struggles to recover from the lingering recession and cope with the massive debt burden imposed on the economy by increased government spending.
Unfortunately, recent actions by your handpicked political appointees at the National Labor Relations Board are making it more difficult for America to win the future.
The NLRB, at the behest of Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon, has taken unprecedented legal action against The Boeing Company to prevent it from expanding productions into South Carolina, a state that assures workers the freedom not to join a union as a condition of employment.
We consider this an attack on millions of workers in 22 right-to-work states, as well as a government-led act of intimidation against American companies that should have the freedom to choose to build plants in right-to-work states.
It continues on from there in the same tone. Meanwhile, the Senate seems poised to move forward on a bill addressing the situation.
Responding to the National Labor Relations Board complaint against Boeing, Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint from South Carolina and Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, are introducing a bill today to protect right-to-work states from federal interference.
“The ‘Right to Work Protection Act,’ I think, is a very solid piece of legislation that is going to serve the country as a whole,” Graham said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “I do appreciate this legislation because it would preserve the ability of a state to go down that road without suffering at the federal level.”
Graham said the act will prohibit the federal government from punishing right-to-work states through contract awards or federal action.
For those of you who were wondering last month about why Congress seemed to be taking so much vacation time and trips to gambling centers in China, be of good cheer. Looking over all the news this week, they actually seem to be getting back to work. At this rate, their 9% approval rating could be climbing into double digits any day now!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
She doesn’t care, she thinks this is all fun and games, which it is for left-wing lawyers.
rockmom on May 5, 2011 at 12:52 PM
Tort reform won’t help in this case, unfortunately Congress is going to have to amend and clarify the NRLA to avert such shenanigans by the NLRB in the future. But in the short term, some more noisemaking by Sen. DeMint and others will probably force with withdrawal of this complaint against Boeing.
rockmom on May 5, 2011 at 12:54 PM
If we had a loser pays law, government agencies may not file these suits because there would be no threat to other companies. If the govt does not have a case, all other companies would not be deterred by cost.
Vince on May 5, 2011 at 12:59 PM
No, not as much as possible. A fair wage for the work performed. You’re not implying that it’s a unions job to get as much as possible even though it may eventually drive the company out of business or the country are you?
Apparently this particular union has a habit of striking whether it’s in the interest of their members or not. When strikes hurt business … as in the X-35 strike … perhaps it’s time to rethink your location.
I don’t see how stating the truth is breaking the law, or discouraging workers from striking. In fact, workers should be questiuoning the need to constantly strike a successful company. They’re just hurting their own self interest.
No, not really. Like I said, workers are hired to perform a service … not be a part of management.
darwin on May 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM
Here’s hoping a user-pays law is on the agenda for next time around. Should have been done long ago.
petefrt on May 5, 2011 at 1:08 PM
Well we agree there.
We also seem to agree that unions’ wage demands are often excessive. I don’t think that’s necessarily their fault…it’s the result of structural problems that encourage economic irrationality (i.e., since union density is relatively low, the costs of excessive wages are externalized on non-union consumers. If union density were higher it would incentivize unions to moderate their wage demands since the inflationary costs would be imposed on union-consumers)
It’s all about intent. It may seem odd, but that’s just how the law works. If Boeing’s intent was to discourage WA workers from exercising their statutory right to strike, then they violated 8(a)(3).
You’re begging the question.
I think there’s a good argument BOD representation would cause unions to moderate their wage demands, a goal which you share apparently. So why do you object to employee representation on the board?
crr6 on May 5, 2011 at 1:15 PM
The employee has no need to know. All they need to know is; Am I being offered/paid enough, and if not, do I want to stay or look for another job. Simple as that. I’ve turned down jobs because they didn’t pay as much as I needed to pay my bills with. You don’t need to know how much you can extort from the company. Pro-choice, baby.
Big John on May 5, 2011 at 1:22 PM
How about simple decency and putting selfishness aside to “moderate” their “demands”?
Big John on May 5, 2011 at 1:24 PM
Why would you think that?
Vince on May 5, 2011 at 1:30 PM
Who is that rep going to represent during negotiations? The union? Or the stock holders?
ladyingray on May 5, 2011 at 1:59 PM
Since the original need for unions has long disappeared, one might argue that the need for unions has disappeared as well. Laws are now in place to protect workers, as well as safety and health offices that ensure businesses follow all regulations designed to ensure a safe and healthy working environment.
In all reality, unions are in business for unions, not their members.
It seems odd that Boeing would first negotiate with the union if their intent was to discourage workers from striking. The union was greedy, lost, and now wants Boeing to be forced to lose millions of dollars to stay in WA.
I don’t ask my plumber or car mechanic to sit in on our family budget meetings … why would any company ask it’s workforce to sit on the board? These people are hired to perform specific tasks … not make business decisions. If they’re not happy with their pay or benefits, they can go somewhere else.
darwin on May 5, 2011 at 2:01 PM
If unions want to sit on the board then pony up some cash, buy a healthy chunk of Boeing stock and I’m sure they have the ear of the board members.
darwin on May 5, 2011 at 2:03 PM
This is what always happens with trolls like crr666. Ask them to explain their logic and they got nothing.
Well????
Vince on May 5, 2011 at 2:14 PM
I don’t agree. I hope capitalism evolves to empower the workers. It gives more dignity to the worker and the firm gets more from the worker. Unions disempower the worker. Union rules often actively forbid a worker from improving his workflow or thinking how to increase the profitability of the company. Eliminating unions will make work better for the workers.
I so believe that everyone should empowered that I think janitors should spend five percent of their time on activities generally considered interior decorating. I wonder if Google is consistent enough in their philosophy to permit that.
thuja on May 5, 2011 at 2:15 PM
Unions unfortunately have had the tendency to devolve into protected sinecures for the union leaders, with precious few actual benefits for the members. The Bush Administration actually tried to restore some balance with rules and disclosures of the financial interests of union leadership. Hilda Solis immediately disbanded the unit that handled this stuff and DOL has stopped collecting the disclosures.
rockmom on May 5, 2011 at 2:21 PM
My guess is she doesn’t know who the BOD members work for…
ladyingray on May 5, 2011 at 2:32 PM
During what negotiations? Obviously any director is always going to have a fiduciary duty to the SH’s. My only point is that having union representation on the BOD would give unions better access to strategic information, which would foster a relationship of trust between union and management and allow them to negotiate more rationally.
I thought I explained it pretty well earlier in the thread.
crr6 on May 5, 2011 at 2:41 PM
But in case you missed it, here ya go…
crr6 on May 5, 2011 at 2:46 PM
So, effectively we are talking about a case build upon what people have said.
As a so-called ‘Liberal’ does the chilling effect this case will have of the Liberty of free-speech bother you?
Chip on May 5, 2011 at 2:46 PM
So, effectively we are talking about a case built upon what people have said.
(It’s hard to type in rubber gloves, sorry)
Chip on May 5, 2011 at 2:53 PM
TMI
Odie1941 on May 5, 2011 at 2:54 PM
Sorry again.
Chip on May 5, 2011 at 2:56 PM
Phony law student suggests union reps on BoDs? And admits directors have a fiduciary duty to shareholders?
Does the phony not realize “union representatives” have a duty to their members, and that this sets up an apparent conflict of interests?
Law student, my arse!
Adjoran on May 5, 2011 at 2:58 PM
hehe
Odie1941 on May 5, 2011 at 3:33 PM
The WA plant is not closing.
Evidently they are also adding some new jobs there.
They are alss opening a new plant in SC bcs they have aircraft to build & a time in which to deliver them.
They didn’t locate it in WA bcs it was not feasible.
But no one has lost ther job.And more jobs are being added in WA.
So there is nothing that went wrong here, other than someone crying foul bcs how dare Boeing locate one of their shops in a non-union state.
It seems like no matter how much you speak the truth to people, they are so embroiled in their own bias, they refuse to see the truth.
Badger40 on May 5, 2011 at 4:15 PM
Unions have no right to corporate strategic information. Employees have no right to corporate strategic information. You know less about business than you do law.
ladyingray on May 5, 2011 at 4:34 PM
Right, but if a union rep served on the BOD, they’d have access to that information, and they could share it w/employees (and more importantly, use it when bargaining with management).
And you know nothing about either.
crr6 on May 5, 2011 at 4:56 PM
OK, then Boeing should be able to have an executive sit on the union board. Boeing could use the information when bargaining with the union. What’s good for the goose …
darwin on May 5, 2011 at 5:18 PM
That’s arguably illegal (under 8(a)(2) of the NLRA), but even if it weren’t, I’m not sure how it would help management. What strategic info does the union have that management doesn’t have?
crr6 on May 5, 2011 at 5:24 PM
One red flag was her near constant use of the Wikipedia as a credible information resource.
(Oh no! I could be accused of saying she’s a Commie!)
However, her Childish debating tactics should be the confirmation that should put serious doubts into everyone’s minds as to her background.
Chip on May 5, 2011 at 5:26 PM
When they might be planning one of their frequent and periodic strikes. I’m not sure how helpful that would be since Boeing already knows they strike when it harms the company the most.
darwin on May 5, 2011 at 5:34 PM
Boeing exec: Production is well ahead of schedule, costs are below projections and we have our first ten orders to fill by next month. You guys are doing great.
Boeing staffer: Sir, it’s the union on line one… they’re calling a strike. One of their demands is larger parking spots for union members. Their Escalades and Expeditions don’t fit in our current spaces.
Boeing exec: Call our customers and tell them their orders will be delayed.
Boeing staffer: Sir, we’ve just had 8 cancellations. They went with Airbus instead since their aircraft were available for delivery on their required date.
Boeing exec: groan
Union rep: Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
darwin on May 5, 2011 at 5:42 PM
Thank God I no longer employ other people.
trigon on May 5, 2011 at 6:09 PM
The unions, and their lackeys in the NLRB are terrified because they know that the SC plant will produce aircraft at lower costs, and with fewer defects. This will lead inexorably to Boeing leaving Seattle.
Slowburn on May 5, 2011 at 6:14 PM
I don’t understand why we don’t have enough to impeach this jackass we have in the WH.
This lawsuit, the lawsuit against Texas, the lawsuit against Utah, Arizona (all red states by the way)
Any new Gov. contracts the companies have to say what political party they support.
Large privately owned Pharma co. GOP supporter the owner and CEO must resign or will no longer get Gov. contracts.
I thought the Mafia was out of business but guess it just moved into the WH.
Chicago thugs at wotk. IMPEACH before it’s to late.
concernedsenior on May 5, 2011 at 6:53 PM
But what about this?
A member of the BOD is there to protect the investment of the SH and not the unions. You just admitted that a ‘union’ seat at the BOD table would be beneficial to ‘the unions’ in negotiations. A member of the BOD is there to negotiate on the behalf of the SH, not the employees (which is what “bargaining with management” means).
Well, I am a lowly corporate accountant, and you are an esteemed (in your own mind) student, but I just schooled you on business, wannabe.
I clearly know more than you do.
ladyingray on May 5, 2011 at 7:26 PM
Hello? United Auto Workers!
YehuditTX on May 5, 2011 at 9:30 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2