NLRB memo: More in store for businesses like Boeing; Update: NLRB responds

posted at 12:45 pm on May 17, 2011 by Tina Korbe

The complaint against Boeing might have just been the beginning. It seems the National Labor Relations Board can’t bear to let businesses relocate without allowing unions to have a say.

Current NLRB rules allow a business to move without first negotiating the relocation with its union — provided the decision doesn’t turn on labor costs. But according to a recent internal memo from the NLRB general counsel’s office, NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman now wants to compel businesses to provide unions with information about relocation decisions in advance. That way, Liebman reasons, unions will have a chance to ascertain to what extent the business is moving because of labor costs — and will ultimately be able to bargain against the move.

On one level, this sounds sensible: If a business decides to relocate and the decision seems to be based primarily on labor cost concerns, union leaders might complain to the NLRB — and say, given the chance to bargain, they would have made concessions that might have altered the business’ decision. In other words, requiring businesses to advise unions as to the motivation for a move in advance might necessitate bargaining — but it might also spare companies NLRB involvement. That seems to be what Liebman wants businesses to believe, anyway.

But to require business leaders to provide unions with this kind of detailed information about their business plan is just one step closer to making unions “equal partner[s] in the running of the business enterprise” — and the Supreme Court has already said the National Labor Relations Act in no way mandates such equal partnership.

Moreover, these requirements would be expensive.

What Liebman envisions would raise business costs enormously. Current labor law and the attitude of the pro-union NLRB enables unions to drag negotiations on … and on … and on. Until bargaining hits an “impasse,” employers could not legally make any business changes opposed by their union.

If the NLRB really wants to preserve work in any given state, its best bet would be to advise that state to pass right-to-work legislation. Compared to forced-unionism states, right-to-work states have more new residents, more new businesses, more new jobs and faster income growth, according to a new report from Sen. Jim DeMint. What’s not to like?

Update: NLRB Public Affairs Director Nancy Cleeland wasn’t able to get back to me with a statement before scheduled publication, but she called after publication of the post to say she is looking into the implications of the memo and will respond shortly.

Update: Here’s the full response from NLRB spokeswoman Nancy Cleeland:

A 30-year-old Board decision called Dubuque Packing sets the framework for when an employer with a union workforce must bargain over relocation. If the decision is considered ‘entrepreneurial,’ involving a change in the scope of the business, it does not have to be bargained. However, if labor costs are a factor in the move, the employer is obligated to bargain to give the union a chance to make concessions, unless the employer can show that the union could not make sufficient concessions to change the decision. The Dubuque decision advised that employers would improve their chances of showing the union could not have made sufficient concessions by explaining its reasons to the union in advance of the move and asking whether the union could offer sufficient labor cost reductions, but did not require it.

In the Embarq decision issued by the Board on March 31, 2011, which found the employer did not have a duty to bargain before moving, Chairman Wilma B. Liebman suggested in her concurring opinion that the “Board’s task would be easier, and, more importantly, the Act’s policy of promoting collective bargaining might well be better served, if employers were required to provide unions with requested information about relocation decisions whenever there was a reasonable likelihood that labor-cost concessions might affect the decision. To encourage more constructive good-faith bargaining, we might modify the Dubuque framework, for example, by requiring the employer to timely advise the union whether its contemplated relocation plan turns on labor costs.”

The Operations Management Memo issued on May 10 and available on our website merely asks regional offices to identify cases that might raise this issue and send them to the Division of Advice at NLRB’s Washington DC headquarters for review, in light of the Embarq decision. Based upon the review, the General Counsel’s office could bring a case to the Board to revisit the question of timing on providing information.

This is an extremely early stage of a process that may lead to reevaluating one aspect of Board law with an eye toward making it more useful and efficient for all parties involved.

Cleeland’s point is well-taken: Board law should be “more useful and efficient for all parties involved.” Hopefully that means the NLRB will consider whether “requiring the employer to timely advise the union whether its contemplated relocation plan turns on labor costs” would be more useful or efficient from an employer’s standpoint, too.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4

And here I thought the big unions were just wasting millions and millions on politics. I guess not.

RBMN on May 17, 2011 at 12:49 PM

The Boeing case was not a ‘relocation’, it was expansion into another state, but let’s not expect the NLRB to bother with details like that.

slickwillie2001 on May 17, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Excellent first post Tina.

DarkCurrent on May 17, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Union thuggery, as endorsed by Obama. So I guess Sears won’t be allowed to leave Illinois either? Are they unionized?

ornery_independent on May 17, 2011 at 12:50 PM

If the NLRB really wants to preserve work in any given state, its best bet would be to advise that state to pass right-to-work legislation.

Not likely with the current Regime. If businesses want to preserve their viability in light of new NLRB roadblocks, their best bet would be to relocate off shore.

olesparkie on May 17, 2011 at 12:50 PM

How long before this drives business overseas ?

Sandybourne on May 17, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Boeing is opening a new plant for a specific airline.
That’s not a relocation.

Kini on May 17, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Wait. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Just a second here.

The contract stated that all threads by Tina had to have her picture in them somewhere.

lorien1973 on May 17, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Could you imagine the impact of some strategically announced corporate closures / off-shore relocations announced in Fall 2011 and blamed on Obama and his NLRB? Absolutely delicious.

olesparkie on May 17, 2011 at 12:52 PM

ornery_independent on May 17, 2011 at 12:50 PM

No, they are not

Kini on May 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Current NLRB rules allow a business

That’s as far as I got.

WHAT!

OldEnglish on May 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM

The final outcome of the NLRB’s view of the world is that businesses will be required to have union approval to go out of business.

SlaveDog on May 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM

If the NLRB really wants to preserve work in any given state, its best bet would be to advise that state to pass right-to-work legislation.

Forced unionization is an article of faith for the progressives. They’ll force right-to-work states to forced-unionization, never the other way ’round.

Short of that, they’re building a Berlin wall around the blue states, right now with dictats from the federal government – later on as things get worse: brick and mortar?

Rebar on May 17, 2011 at 12:55 PM

The pendulum has swung about as far as it can to favor unions. And now Obama’s minions are holding onto it as it’s reached its maximum angle. This will at best postpone the pendulum swinging back to favor business, or at worst drive good jobs out of the country. Labor is as bad as any of the other myopic groups concerned only for their own self-interest while our country declines.

Paul-Cincy on May 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM

how many on the board currently work or have worked in unions?

cmsinaz on May 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Ignore the NLRB. They have no right to exist, much less tell private businesses what they can do.

Vashta.Nerada on May 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM

SlaveDog on May 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Directive 10-289.

lorien1973 on May 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM

welcome aboard Tina!

cmsinaz on May 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Oh, and BTW Tina, the new labor rules here at Hot Air require that you can’t move to another blog without our approval. Just so you you know.

SlaveDog on May 17, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Just dont call Obama a socialist.

the_nile on May 17, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Exhibit A of why me must have a national right to work law ASAP.

Better yet, just outlaw labor unions. At this point it wouldn’t be any more un-American than this.

Of course, one better hope Mitch Daniels isn’t POTUS, because he’ll kill the bill like he did in Indiana.

gary4205 on May 17, 2011 at 12:57 PM

If we had a good GOP they candidate would be pounding this issue.

Oil Can on May 17, 2011 at 12:58 PM

Time to defund the NLRB. That might help our deficit in more ways than one…

Right on May 17, 2011 at 12:59 PM

How long before this drives business overseas ?

Sandybourne on May 17, 2011 at 12:51 PM

That will just be an excuse for more regulation until US become Venezuela of the north.

the_nile on May 17, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Like China, like Venezuela, like Russia.

Obama is none other than a totalitarian business thug and the welfare pimp.

Call me a racist!

But, hey, CEOs, you dummies, pay for his reelection.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 12:59 PM

With all this crud businesses who have union thugs in them would be better off, cost wise, to move overseas. A business does not have to put up with this from the union thugs, period! I don’t think many are planning to go to mexico because of the drug gangs and killings though.

Also with the threat of the eo from bho over demanding a company must give an account of what political party they give money to before they could get gov. contracts. This whole thing happens in venezuela not here in America until bho was elected!
L

letget on May 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM

effin unions. Parasites.

JustJP on May 17, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Excellent first post, Tina! Your wisdom belies your years! Also the NLRB is becoming a fascist organization…and they say this is just the beginning??!! That should be the final nail in the coffin of American industry.

cynccook on May 17, 2011 at 1:01 PM

God I hate these union PsOS.

WisCon on May 17, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Very nice first post Tina!..:)

Dire Straits on May 17, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Stuff like this just affirms my earlier decision to never make a job for another person ever again.

trigon on May 17, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Surely, more obstruction and harassment of businesses from the federal government at the behest of the Democrat party will create more jobs for more people.

Good Lt on May 17, 2011 at 1:03 PM

What’s not to like?

No Marxist-NationalSocialist Central Planning?

Hugo Junkers had his airplane company taken from him by the National Socialists. How is it different if America’s DNC NationalSocialists take control of Boeing? Socialism is socialism. It is a supremely evil form of government no matter who runs it. But that certainly seems to be the goal of President Obeyme and the Socialists at the DNC, doesn’t it?

oldleprechaun on May 17, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Labor is as bad as any of the other myopic groups concerned only for their own self-interest while our country declines.

Paul-Cincy on May 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM

I am amazed that the unions can get away with the moniker of LABOR as they have long since become BIG BUSINESSES, not only against the private sector, but against the American tax payer.

My wish is that all large corporations fold-up shop and move out of the country until unions are abolished and deemed illegal.

belad on May 17, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Who is John Galt?

Repubtallygirl on May 17, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Welcome, Tina. Looking forward to more of your fine posts down the line.

TXUS on May 17, 2011 at 1:07 PM

A hypothetical for y’all.

I am a businessman, and I have a plant in Podunk, and the cost of living in Podunk is up there in the godawful high range, and that plant is costing me more to maintain/repair than the value of the land it sits upon, my supply chain is way too long, all the way across the country for most things I need, and local wages are skewed such that I am actually making less a year than a good number of my employees, thanks to the union, and yet another round of union demands indicates that next year I will take a huge loss since the union demands that I give them more and more and more…or they’ll shut me down with a walk-out.

However, I find that in another state there is a parcel of land that is cheap, right next to the interstate and abutting up against a new regional inter-modal hub, the local costs of living are well below the national average, I’ve access to markets and resources, shorter supply chain for my needs, and it is in a right-to-work state where prevailing wages are decent, not astronomic, and the state and county are going out of their way trying to encourage businesses to relocate there, and I can offer my line of products to consumers for quite a bit less than they have to be sold for under present circumstances.

Can I relocate?

Probably not. Not under the current NLRB.

So, I will close the plant. Try to recover as much as I can to offset my losses. Sorry that my products will no longer be available to the consumers.

And probably have to hire a good law firm so that after I close the plant in Podunk, I can address the federal suit I will face for being a private entrepreneur trying to earn a living, and provide a good product as cheaply as possible for the consumers and provide a decent wage for my employees without having to go into more debt each year as I face yet another round of union demands for more and more and more.

Is there something wrong here?

Do we still live in the United States?

And, no, the union is not an equal partner. I built this plant, with my money and my risk, and my name on the loans, and I am responsible for every little nit-picky thing that goes on in that plant…not some union steward or local union boss.

The situation is hypothetical….but the danger this Administration hand-in-hand with the unions if posing for this Nation is anything but hypothetical.

And, Tina, welcome to Hot Air. We are all not as strange as others say we are. :-)

coldwarrior on May 17, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Better talk to Immelt about this…making business ask permission from the unions is typical payoff.

right2bright on May 17, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Seriously. Ignore the NLRB. Corporations should build plants wherever they want. Is the NLRB going to ask the president or a governor to send in National Guard troops to prevent the new plant from opening? It is time to call the bluff of these socialists.

Vashta.Nerada on May 17, 2011 at 1:09 PM

On one level, this sounds sensible: If a business decides to relocate and the decision seems to be based primarily on labor cost concerns, union leaders might complain to the NLRB — and say, given the chance to bargain, they would have made concessions that might have altered the business’ decision

What level would that be Tina? Welcome to Hot Air, but man …

If I own a business I have obligations to my employees that are spelled out in the contract, but beyond that, they shouldn’t be able to say a single damn thing about how I operate my business and when I relocate.

And the government should have even less than a single damn thing.

This has nothing to do with informing the union so they can make concessions so I can decide not to move my business. This is all about the unions using the government to tell me how to operate my business regardless of whether the unions make concessions or not.

In fact, if the government has the power to cancel a relocation based on the complaints of the union, why should the union want to make any concessions at all?

PackerBronco on May 17, 2011 at 1:09 PM

A hypothetical for y’all.

I am a businessman, and I have a plant in Podunk, and the cost of living in Podunk is up there in the godawful high range, and that plant is costing me more to maintain/repair than the value of the land it sits upon, my supply chain is way too long, all the way across the country for most things I need, and local wages are skewed such that I am actually making less a year than a good number of my employees, thanks to the union, and yet another round of union demands indicates that next year I will take a huge loss since the union demands that I give them more and more and more…or they’ll shut me down with a walk-out.

However, I find that in another state there is a parcel of land that is cheap, right next to the interstate and abutting up against a new regional inter-modal hub, the local costs of living are well below the national average, I’ve access to markets and resources, shorter supply chain for my needs, and it is in a right-to-work state where prevailing wages are decent, not astronomic, and the state and county are going out of their way trying to encourage businesses to relocate there, and I can offer my line of products to consumers for quite a bit less than they have to be sold for under present circumstances.

Can I relocate?

Yep.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Evidently, the weather in South Carolina is fairer for conservatives than it is in Alabama. After the Northrup/EADS tanker deal, this is just desserts for Boeing. Serves them right. Go cry to your lawyers and lobbyists.

Christien on May 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Seriously. Ignore the NLRB.

Vashta.Nerada on May 17, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Great advice from the “law and order” crowd!

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM

I find this entire issue so disgusting, I can’t think straight when I read about it!!!!

capejasmine on May 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM

If these actions were to actually become the norm you will see business flat line in states that are not right-to-work. What business person in their right mind would invest in a location where it means forever putting you under the Union’s thumb if you want to expand or relocate somewhere else.

ChipDaddy on May 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM

I still can’t get past the fact that there is a government organization that can have anything to say about where a business locates. Where was this organization when we lost textiles, steel, furniture, etc. etc. Did the unions try to negotiate a reduction in their compensation to keep them in the country?

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 1:11 PM

lorien1973 on May 17, 2011 at 12:52 PM

I’ve missed you.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 1:12 PM

How long until companies close by sudden selling of assets, paying employees their wages ahead for the next year or two, and then the execs taking a fast plane/boat out of the country?

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 17, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Great advice from the “law and order” crowd!

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Sorry, but when a regime makes a mockery of our constitution and laws, they deserve the protection of neither.

Vashta.Nerada on May 17, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Well, I can see why Ed hired her. She writes just like he does. Either that, or he heavily edited her article. That’s just an observation.

DaydreamBeliever on May 17, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Prohibiting capital mobility is critical to the Statists’ efforts to destroy capitalism and replace it with crony-capitalism.

It needs to be stopped.

forest on May 17, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Absolutely unacceptable. No frickin’ way. None.

petefrt on May 17, 2011 at 1:15 PM

I still can’t get past the fact that there is a government organization that can have anything to say about where a business locates. Where was this organization when we lost textiles, steel, furniture, etc. etc. Did the unions try to negotiate a reduction in their compensation to keep them in the country?

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 1:11 PM

We don’t. They are assuming powers not granted, just like the EPA deciding to enforce Cap and Trade, despite the fact that no law was passed.

Vashta.Nerada on May 17, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Boeing made its bed with the unions, now it can sleep in it.

Christien on May 17, 2011 at 1:16 PM

We are seeing only those parts of the jihadist Obama’s assault on America that he thinks will not hurt his reelection chances. Just imagine what we would see from him in a second term.

GaltBlvnAtty on May 17, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Every day, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged looks more and more relevant.

search4truth on May 17, 2011 at 1:17 PM

What is a union anyway? A union is an organized group that offers services to a business based on a relationship that is spelled out in a contract. Union seek to have a monopoly on the type of labor they represent through a) government regulation and b) forcing workers to join the union so that the service union workers employ is only available through the union and nowhere else.

Let’s take the union of the equation for a minute. Let’s replace the model of a union and a business with two businesses. Say we have a paper mill and a paper manufacturer. The manufacturer wants to relocate. Now it has a contract with the paper mill until the end of year to purchase products from it, but after that the contract expires.

Under what twisted system would we have the government come in and tell the paper manufacturer that it can’t move without the paper mill’s consent after it has fulfilled the terms of its current contract?

So how is this scenario different from the relationship between a business and a union?

PackerBronco on May 17, 2011 at 1:17 PM

How long before this drives business overseas ?

Sandybourne on May 17, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Corporations move overseas because they are racist, bigoted, hateful, greedy, imperialist, and evil.

There are no economic repercussions to Leftist ideology and policy. If there are unintended consequences, then the only possible solution is doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on failed Leftist policy.

visions on May 17, 2011 at 1:18 PM

“Compared to forced-unionism states, right-to-work states have more new residents, more new businesses, more new jobs and faster income growth, according to a new report from Sen. Jim DeMint. What’s not to like?”
What’s not to like? Free enterprise, of course.

Ira on May 17, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Excellent first post, Tina.

And I’m still ahead of you on Klout. For one more day at least. :)

Each day I feel more and more like I’m living in Ayn Rand’s imagination. Can someone please let me out and back into the real world?

Definitely time to review and curtail the NLRB’s mandate.

Chris of Rights on May 17, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Great advice from the “law and order” crowd!

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM

I agree with Vashta.Nerada. Ignore the NLRB. The NLRB is out of control, as is the entire Obama administration. To abide by the dictates of the NLRB is to legitimize it.

States should offer sanctuary to companies fleeing from the thuggish tactics of unions and the NLRB.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Every day, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged looks more and more relevant.

search4truth on May 17, 2011 at 1:17 PM

“All the manufacturing establishments of the country, of any size and nature, were forbidden to move from their present locations, except when granted a special permission to do so by the Bureau of . . . .” Pg. 333

GaltBlvnAtty on May 17, 2011 at 1:21 PM

There are no economic repercussions to Leftist ideology and policy.
visions on May 17, 2011 at 1:18 PM

You’re forgetting proletarian poverty and slavery, but granted, those are long-term consequences.

Vashta.Nerada on May 17, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Well, I can see why Ed hired her. She writes just like he does. Either that, or he heavily edited her article. That’s just an observation.

DaydreamBeliever on May 17, 2011 at 1:13 PM

I caught the similarities in style too. At first I thought it was an Ed piece. But it wasn’t quite the right tone. Similar. Not identical.

Chris of Rights on May 17, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Yep.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:09 PM

So you dispute the claim in this article that “Current NLRB rules allow a business to move without first negotiating the relocation with its union — provided the decision doesn’t turn on labor costs.”

What do you think the NLRB does?

PackerBronco on May 17, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Under what real authority do they operate?

gator70 on May 17, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Definitely time to review and curtail the NLRB’s mandate.

Chris of Rights on May 17, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Time to dissolve it.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 1:24 PM

So you dispute the claim in this article that “Current NLRB rules allow a business to move without first negotiating the relocation with its union — provided the decision doesn’t turn on labor costs.”

In his hypo the decision didn’t turn on labor costs. He had all sorts of reasons, other than labor costs or anti-union animus, to move his plant.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Seriously. Ignore the NLRB.

Vashta.Nerada on May 17, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Great advice from the “law and order” crowd!

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Tina…

… may I introduce you to crr6. Crr6… Tina.

Seven Percent Solution on May 17, 2011 at 1:25 PM

I applaud your highlighting this development in an important matter facing the business community in the US.

But I humbly disagree that any aspect of this scheme sounds reasonable on any level.

Much like the bondholder’s enforced “haircuts” inordinately benefitted the UAW, so too would this merely give labor unions an undue and unreasonable amount of say in the operation of a business; these decisions should be made by the owners and managers in consultation with the shareholders of publicly held companies at best.

Anything else is merely a soft form of communism to varying degree.

My regards.

RocketmanBob on May 17, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Under what real authority do they operate?

gator70 on May 17, 2011 at 1:23 PM

The Taft-Hartley Act, interstate commerce don’t you know.

Vashta.Nerada on May 17, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Under what real authority do they operate?

gator70 on May 17, 2011 at 1:23 PM

The NLRA.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:26 PM

I agree with Vashta.Nerada. Ignore the NLRB. The NLRB is out of control

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 1:21 PM

No, it’s really not. All it’s doing is beginning to actually enforce the laws that are on the books. That may appear novel to you, but that’s because under Republican administrations, the NLRB attempts to circumvent or flat out ignore the text and spirit of the NLRA.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Vashta.Nerada on May 17, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Then what the firetruck? Why is anyone listening to these big dummies? We need to stop following the orders of illegal political power brokers. Crazy.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Time to dissolve it.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Never happen. And likely more expensive to remove than to keep. Currently the NLRB is the final go-between when labor thinks they’ve been treated unjustly and/or unfairly by management. Without the NLRB, labor would have to take all of these disputes to the courts.

No one wants that. Management, least of all. Costs and time to effect decisions would become outrageous. As bad as the NLRB is, and it’s awful, it’s better than the alternative. Just need to seriously limit its authority.

Chris of Rights on May 17, 2011 at 1:29 PM

In his hypo the decision didn’t turn on labor costs. He had all sorts of reasons, other than labor costs or anti-union animus, to move his plant.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Why should he have to answer to anyone the reasons for relocating his business? Why is moving because of labor costs or anti-union animus (as you call it) a reason for government intervention?

Now, obviously he has to fulfill the terms of his contract with the union and perhaps in the contract there are agreements between the union and the business how about relocation and compsensation should be handled; but why should the business have additional obligations that are not part of the contract?

PackerBronco on May 17, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Welcome Tina. Fasten your seatbelt!

Nelsa on May 17, 2011 at 1:31 PM

I’ve looked at the NLRA and I don’t see where it gives the NLRB the power to tell a company where it can set up shop.

gator70 on May 17, 2011 at 1:33 PM

No, it’s really not. All it’s doing is beginning to actually enforce the laws that are on the books. That may appear novel to you, but that’s because under Republican administrations, the NLRB attempts to circumvent or flat out ignore the text and spirit of the NLRA.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:27 PM

If these are laws already on the books then the law needs to be stricken from the books. This is nothing more than an attempt to takeover and control business under threat.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 1:34 PM

I’ve looked at the NLRA and I don’t see where it gives the NLRB the power to tell a company where it can set up shop.

gator70 on May 17, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Bingo.

Vashta.Nerada on May 17, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Cost issues, business intelligence and secrecy issues, implicating the contractual agreements between unions and owners, hiring issues for the new concern, I could go on why this make no sense whatsoever for a business. And the worst is basically saying that the NLRB now would have their finger in the pie everytime a business wanted to move.

No way in hell this should ever get approved.

georgealbert on May 17, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Actually, crr6, you should be arguing that since at least ONE of the factors in the decision is the cost of labor (he’s moving to a right-to-work state, where wages are lower, remember), he shouldn’t be allowed to move after all.

However, since almost ANY business decision about relocating involve labor costs, you should also argue that a union has final say over whether a business may move, thus making the union an equal – or, perhaps, superior – partner, since they have ultimate veto power.

Tell me again why anybody but the owners of a business – be they sole proprietorship, partnership, or stockholders – has any say in the matter at all?

psrch on May 17, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Why does it seem reasonable that a union can force a company to share information about why it’s locating a portion of its business in a certain place?

Apparently generating a profit= union-busting. Unfortunately for the unions, generating a loss= union-busting, in a much more permanent sense.

Let’s say Compay X wants to build a new plant in Texas to save money. But the union says “NOT FAIR”! Company X will then either build their plant in Mexico, or not build the plant, or maybe even build the plant in a union state, reducing corporate profits. None of those options helps the future of unions.

hawksruleva on May 17, 2011 at 1:41 PM

All it’s doing is beginning to actually enforce the laws that are on the books…

You mean, it’s beginning to interpret the laws that are on the books in favor of unions and in opposition to business and economic growth, in the belief that since the current administration is union-friendly and business-hostile, they can get away with it.

But thanks for playing.

psrch on May 17, 2011 at 1:41 PM

States need to offer sanctuary to companies fleeing union states.

Ignore the law, ignore the board.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Christien on May 17, 2011 at 1:33 PM

Apparently there were charges and prison, are you suggesting that the entire company never be used again because of this incident? I doubt the unions would fare any better.

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 1:41 PM

NLRB = “National Keep The Unionites Funded So Dems Can Get More Votes At Election Time Board”

BobMbx on May 17, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Why don’t they just rename the organization:
National Union Relations Board (NURB)

Kini on May 17, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Let’s say Compay X wants to build a new plant in Texas to save money. But the union says “NOT FAIR”! Company X will then either build their plant in Mexico, or not build the plant, or maybe even build the plant in a union state, reducing corporate profits. None of those options helps the future of unions.

hawksruleva on May 17, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Since unions have driven countless jobs and industry into other countries … maybe that’s the plan. Redistribute American wealth by forcing companies out of America.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Why should he have to answer to anyone the reasons for relocating his business? Why is moving because of labor costs or anti-union animus (as you call it) a reason for government intervention?

Look, I get it that from a normative standpoint, you don’t think anti-union discrimination should be unlawful. That’s great. But Congress made the determination that it’s worthwhile to limit managerial prerogatives and capital mobility to a certain extent in order to protect employees’ rights to join a union and engage in concerted activity. And there are plenty of legitimate reasons for them coming to that conclusion. I’m sure you disagree with those reasons, but they’re still there.

The NLRA isn’t the only law that limits businesses’ decision-making authority. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does, as well. So does the ADA.

Now, obviously he has to fulfill the terms of his contract with the union and perhaps in the contract there are agreements between the union and the business how about relocation and compsensation should be handled; but why should the business have additional obligations that are not part of the contract?

PackerBronco on May 17, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Because those obligations are imposed by a federal law. There are all sorts of obligations in K’s that come from “background law” that’s not actually within the written contract.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:43 PM

If the NLRB really wants to preserve work in any given state, its best bet would be to advise that state to pass right-to-work legislation.

But that’s not what it wants. It wants power. For the left the empowerment of the “right people” to call the shots is the end in itself. It doesn’t matter what consequences ensue.

Blacklake on May 17, 2011 at 1:43 PM

All it’s doing is beginning to actually enforce the laws that are on the books.

Assuming thats true, why don’t you tell us how the NLRB benefits all Americans?

BobMbx on May 17, 2011 at 1:44 PM

I’ve looked at the NLRA and I don’t see where it gives the NLRB the power to tell a company where it can set up shop.

gator70 on May 17, 2011 at 1:33 PM

But does it say they DON’T have that power? After all, the Federal Government assumes all rights not expressly spelled out.

Which is odd, and kinda sad, because I don’t think that’s the way this system was built.

O/T, did anyone catch yesterday’s SCOTUS ruling? Apparently Police can enter your home, if they suspect you may be in the process of destroying evidence (example given in the case – they hear a toilet flush). link

hawksruleva on May 17, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Great advice from the “law and order” crowd!

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM


This coming from the mental midget that doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “relocate“. Watching “Law and Order” could only serve to help your sorry butt – if anything could.
I’d call you a tool, but that would be insulting to tools.

mauioriginal on May 17, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Why don’t they just rename the organization:
National Union Relations Board (NURB)

Kini on May 17, 2011 at 1:43 PM

National Socialist Business Control Board (NSBCB) is more accurate.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM

If these are laws already on the books then the law needs to be stricken from the books.
darwin on May 17, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Well, ok. Good luck with that.

You mean, it’s beginning to interpret the laws that are on the books in favor of unions and in opposition to business and economic growth, in the belief that since the current administration is union-friendly and business-hostile, they can get away with it.
psrch on May 17, 2011 at 1:41 PM

No, that’s not what I meant at all. They’re just enforcing the law.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:45 PM

In the liberal/commie world the privates tell the generals, the workers tell the boss

until they have gained total control

then of course they have the power but are severely lacking in means and will fall

PS: crr6, too bad your pops didn’t prefer the back door

their product would have been better

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Seriously. Ignore the NLRB.

Vashta.Nerada on May 17, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Great advice from the “law and order” crowd!

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM

So one poster = a crowd. Hmmmm. You’re a dimwit useful idiot.

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Since unions have driven countless jobs and industry into other countries … maybe that’s the plan. Redistribute American wealth by forcing companies out of America.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 1:43 PM

But most of the unions, and most of the union leadership in the U.S., wouldn’t benefit from that, right? I think it’s very much like Atlas Shrugged – the looters can’t see that they’re killing the golden goose, blinded by their desire for more and more money.

hawksruleva on May 17, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4