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

I’d call you a tool, but that would be insulting to tools.

mauioriginal on May 17, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Tools are useful for creating or maintaining a product, after all.

hawksruleva on May 17, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Wagging the dog.

KMC1 on May 17, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Because those obligations are imposed by a federal law.
crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:43 PM

It looks like some people here disagree with your interpretation. I’m not going to go there because I’m not a lawyer.

However, if your sole contribution to this thread is “it’s the law”, I’d say you shot your bolt. But it looks to me that this thread is going into the more fundamental question of whether such a policy can be justified.

Care to enter into that discussion?

PackerBronco on May 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM

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

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 1:47 PM

In your case, one poster equals a crowd of zombies.

Seriously people, I hate this as much as any of you, but good luck just ignoring laws you decide you don’t like. That nonsense doesn’t even fly when zit-faced teenagers decide they don’t like the speed limit.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 17, 2011 at 1:50 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

So “looters”= American workers.

Gotcha.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Starting in January of 2009, this alleged “administration” has been dismantling our economy one big-ass bite at a time, and it has carried on non-stop every day since.

Why do Democrats hate prosperity?

hillbillyjim on May 17, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Geez. I am sooooooooooo glad I live in Texas. The NLRB can’t get me here. Too bad ObamaCare can and already has.

stvnscott on May 17, 2011 at 1:52 PM

good luck just ignoring laws you decide you don’t like.
Uncle Sams Nephew on May 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM

That’s funny – the administration is currently doing just that.

Vashta.Nerada on May 17, 2011 at 1:52 PM

Obozo needs to realize that there won’t be any wealth to “spread” if none is created.

hillbillyjim on May 17, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Great advice from the “law and order” crowd!

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:10 PM

You’re right…!

Seven Percent Solution on May 17, 2011 at 1:54 PM

So “looters”= American workers.

Gotcha.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM

See “Wisconsin State Capitol, 2011; labor protest cost state millions in vandalism”

BobMbx on May 17, 2011 at 1:54 PM

In your case, one poster equals a crowd of zombies.

Seriously people, I hate this as much as any of you, but good luck just ignoring laws you decide you don’t like. That nonsense doesn’t even fly when zit-faced teenagers decide they don’t like the speed limit.

Uncle Sam’s Nephew

Whose case?What does your comment even mean about zombies?

Crr paints the whole group with one post.

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 1:55 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

Unions are global, and it’s easier to force people into unions in poorer countries. You want a job? You join the union. If a union is global it doesn’t matter what country the dues come from. Lose some jobs in the US? No problem, pick some up in Mexico.

Unions don’t care about workers, they care about money and power. What they want is so much control that they will control who works and who doesn’t.

They want every job unionized. Think of the money and power. If 100 million workers in the US were unionized, and paid 50 bucks a month in dues … that’s 5 billion a month just from US dues. 5 Billion.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM

So “looters”= American workers.

Gotcha.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Not all Americans. Just your type useful idiot.

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 1:55 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
So “looters”= American workers.
Gotcha.
crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Nice try fecal matter

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Whose case?
CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 1:55 PM

You can’t be that obtuse.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM

So “looters”= American workers.

Gotcha.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM

No.

“looters” = Unions and Obama administration.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM

However, if your sole contribution to this thread is “it’s the law”, I’d say you shot your bolt. But it looks to me that this thread is going into the more fundamental question of whether such a policy can be justified.

Care to enter into that discussion?

PackerBronco on May 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Not really, no. I’d really rather not switch from a descriptive to a normative discussion, because you and I both know we have different values and preferences which inform are views as to what the law should be. We’re not going to settle or solve those fundamental differences just by arguing.

You seem to value private property-type norms more, while I value freedom of association and equality norms a bit more. All of those things are embodied in federal law and the Constitution to a certain extent, and so I don’t think either of us are “wrong” or “right.” My only point is, as a descriptive matter, the NLRA favors my norms over yours right now. And if you want to change that you should work to change the law, rather than complaining about the NLRB doing its job and enforcing the law.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM

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

Christien on May 17, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Man, you really don’t like Boing, do you?? I am not a big Boing fan myself (lost a few defense contracts to them, and they do play hardball) but this is NRLB stuff is over the top.

But really this comes as no surprise given the way the bondholders at GM were boned.

catlady on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 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

THIS.

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

So you are then in favor of the Federal Government enforcing things like Immigration law?

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM

UncleSam are you just another idiot? Do tell.

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

“looters” = Unions and Obama administration.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Unions are made up of American workers.

HTH.

So apparently hawk thinks working for a living makes you a “looter.” Interesting.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:58 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

Never work, because most states are floating on Federal financing. Try to stand up to the Fed and Geithner will cancel your support checks…no SS, no medicare, no roads money.

We are in far deeper trouble than many think or realize.

orbitalair on May 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Crr simply likes a heavy handed fed. That is a fact.

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 1:58 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.

That sounds more like rent-seeking, by how it says “pass this law, or face poverty”. Or at the very least an example of crony capitalism already in place. What says that another law will guarantee prosperity, largely by bleeding one region dry?

How far would it end up going before those governments end up taking not-so-desirable action? I’d imagine that complete collapse/exodus is not going to happen of entire states, but I don’t know how far it’ll go before it stops.

It just seems like another “Pass this law for our interest or suffer” type of bargain. That doesn’t exactly sound like hands-off government.

Sandybourne on May 17, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Kind of hard to do for those already entwined with defense contracts – you’d still end up with a company that still has a US presence.

Second, how long until the US government enforces some form of Point Two (through military action) outside the US? It sounds like that if someone was a big enough thorn in the US’s side, it would happen.

sethstorm on May 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

You seem to value private property-type norms more, while I value freedom of association and equality norms a bit more. All of those things are embodied in federal law and the Constitution to a certain extent, and so I don’t think either of us are “wrong” or “right.” My only point is, as a descriptive matter, the NLRA favors my norms over yours right now. And if you want to change that you should work to change the law, rather than complaining about the NLRB doing its job and enforcing the law.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM

So equality trumps private property?
Nice to know this about you.
WOW.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM

So apparently hawk thinks working for a living makes you a “looter.” Interesting.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Define working useful idiot.

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM

UncleSam are you just another idiot? Do tell.

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

As if you had any room to talk on that subject? Use that head of yours for something besides a hat rack, or has crr6′s short-bus stupidity rubbed off on you?

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Actually, this would all be easier if the government just owned all private property & doled it out equally & fairly.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

So equality trumps private property?
Nice to know this about you.
WOW.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM

It doesn’t “trump” it, but in certain situations, yes, we as a nation value equality more than private property rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a perfect example.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 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
THIS.
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
So you are then in favor of the Federal Government enforcing things like Immigration law?
Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM

That had to hurt!

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

as a descriptive matter, the NLRA favors my norms over yours right now. crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM

No, the truthful answer is that the board favors your values, and only due to a recess appointment that would never have made it through even a democrat-controlled senate. Above and beyond that, nothing in the Act allows the NLRB to restrict an employer from opening a plant wherever they want.

Vashta.Nerada on May 17, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM

I see you are just another idiot. You do realize MOST people here WERE not saying to ignore the law yet you ranted just like CRR….HMM says much about you.

From now on you will be known as Crrs Newphew. Congrats!

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 2:01 PM

Can I relocate?
coldwarrior on May 17, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Probably, but you can never utter the reason why to anyone. Ever. If anyone connected to the union hears anything about your reasoning having to do with labor costs, you will find yourself embroiled in a very nasty lawsuit.

If your shop is union, you are a slave to your employess, the union, and the NLRB. It’s that simple.

stvnscott on May 17, 2011 at 2:01 PM

States need to offer sanctuary to companies fleeing union states.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Hoping to see this happen soon, big time. Any state’s industry attraction/economic development program worth its salt would jump on this opportunity with both feet.

petefrt on May 17, 2011 at 2:02 PM

So apparently hawk thinks working for a living makes you a “looter.” Interesting.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

I’ve known many union employees.
Many of them actually do not work.
Many of the ones that like to work are often not allowed to do too much.
In my profession, teaching, there is a lot of room for slacking.
I just took on a job I didn’t have to bcs I didn’t want to sit on my a$$ half the day instead of teaching.
How many union people do you know would do that?
The ones I know=ZERO.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Crrs Newphew

So now who are these zombies. Psst you are the only one that knows.

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 2:02 PM

It doesn’t “trump” it, but in certain situations, yes, we as a nation value equality more than private property rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a perfect example.
crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

the blank check for totalitarianism

you are too stupid for words

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 2:02 PM

It doesn’t “trump” it, but in certain situations, yes, we as a nation value equality more than private property rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a perfect example.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

I’m not talking about basic human rights.
I’m talking about a person getting to do what they want with their own property.
Like a business relocating bcs the union is impossible to work with.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Unions are made up of American workers.

HTH.

So apparently hawk thinks working for a living makes you a “looter.” Interesting.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Some are looters. You think people like paying and extra 5,000 for a car so some janitor can get paid $80,000 a year and retire at 50 with full medical?

Yeah, that’s looting. But hey, we all know you’re a redistributionist so I understand.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM

But really this comes as no surprise given the way the bondholders at GM were boned.

catlady on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM

ahem….the NON-UNION bondholders at GM

BobMbx on May 17, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Why do Democrats hate prosperity?

hillbillyjim on May 17, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Dems don’t hate prosperity…they just want to decide who wins and who loses.

search4truth on May 17, 2011 at 2:05 PM

It doesn’t “trump” it, but in certain situations, yes, we as a nation value equality more than private property rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a perfect example.
crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

oh the irony

prior to the ” civil rights acts” blacks owned property, had families and worked far more

you stupid lttle commie idealist

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Not really, no. I’d really rather not switch from a descriptive to a normative discussion, because you and I both know we have different values and preferences which inform are views as to what the law should be. We’re not going to settle or solve those fundamental differences just by arguing.

Right. We should just try to kill each other and the survivor wins. If you don’t want to try to resolve differences by arguing, you’re in the wrong place. But if you goal isn’t to persuade by arguing your point, it must mean that your goal is to annoy people with useless gainsaying. That is the classic defintion of a “troll”.

while I value freedom of association and equality norms a bit more.
crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM

So you value “freedom of association” except when it involves who I choose as my neighbors when I relocate my business. And you value “equality” when its “equality of outcome”.

I don’t blame you for sticking to a rather narrow point that the NLRB’s actions are within the law. I think if you actually tried to defend their actions as being correct and justified in themselves, you would get chewed up. But you know that don’t you?

Bye-bye Troll.

PackerBronco on May 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Yeah, that’s looting. But hey, we all know you’re a redistributionist so I understand.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM

She knows what you meant but she plays the game of trying to use the word looter in totally literal sense. She plays those games well.

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

Like a business relocating bcs the union is impossible to work with.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:03 PM

How about simpler….when the employees force a shop to go union. What if the owner, who invested time, talent and treasure to open up the enterprise suddenly loses control of labor issues IN HIS OWN COMPANY. That is the biggest travesty IMHO.

search4truth on May 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

It doesn’t “trump” it, but in certain situations, yes, we as a nation value equality more than private property rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a perfect example.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Hahahaha. No, we don’t value “equality”. We value equal justice and equal opportunity.

But if you insist … if and when you ever make big money please send me some so we can be “equal”.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Step back and take a look at the bigger picture.

The goal of communisum is for the workers to own the means of production and share equally in its profits.

The goal of the unions is control of production, the decisions of the company that effect workers, and a negociated share of the profits.

The unions and communist don’t even bother to hide their associations with each other, both of which support communism.

The goal of communism is to take over the means of production. Forcing the companies to treat the unions as an equal partner is a first step in that direction. How much more would be needed to just move to 51% and take over the company?

Franklyn on May 17, 2011 at 2:09 PM

By equality Crr means that she can marry anyone she wants but of course that does not apply to the guy who wants multiple wives. So much for equality.

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Some are looters. You think people like paying and extra 5,000 for a car so some janitor can get paid $80,000 a year and retire at 50 with full medical?

Yeah, that’s looting. But hey, we all know you’re a redistributionist so I understand.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM

I could have ‘looted’ the taxpayers next year if I hadn’t have made the decision to be a traveling science teacher btw 2 schools.
My schedule next year was to have TWO study halls, one entire hour for lunch & a prep period. Out of 8 periods.
So I applied for the opening ni the other school for science teacher.
Come to find out, the pay difference was $5,000/yr. The school desperately wanted me, but bcs of a UNION inspired state law, they cannot pay me off of their pay scale unless it’s 45days prior to the next school year with no highly qualified applicants.
Oh they had a few applicants. No one you would ever want teaching your kids.
So we came up with the idea of sharing me btw schools.
I said yes.
I’m not getting a pay raise for this.
But I will actually get to teach.
Now I will be teaching 6 differetn subjects/day & get paid the same as a teacher getting to teach 1/2 the day who gets study hall duties & such.
Hmmm… that’s the union for you.
And I AM a union employee in a right to work state, North Dakota.
They have prevented me from leaving here like I want to.
Unions suck.
And as I have said before, I am only a member for the liability protection it gives me against sue happy parents & kids.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

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

Why not? Obama is ok with oil jobs going overseas.

Hard Right on May 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

It doesn’t “trump” it, but in certain situations, yes, we as a nation value equality more than private property rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a perfect example.
crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Straight out of Lenin’s mouth.

Ever watch Dr. Zhivago?

Oh, and Sweetheart, you don’t ever speak for me. Thanks.

BobMbx on May 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

It doesn’t “trump” it, but in certain situations, yes, we as a nation value equality more than private property rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a perfect example.
crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

the world would have lost nothing if your mom fell down the stairs at eight months with you inside

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM

But if you insist … if and when you ever make big money please send me some so we can be “equal”.

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Good darwin, you must be crazy. Lefties insist in redistributing your and other’s money, not their own.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM

So “looters”= American workers.

Gotcha.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM

NO, NO, NO!

Looters are YOU.

Moochers are the welfare kings/queens.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Franklyn on May 17, 2011 at 2:09 PM

All the big unions openly support communism. One day, unless they’re reined in it won’t be so great to be in a union anymore. If unions control business … they’ll also control pay and benefits and guess what’ll happen to both..

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM

It doesn’t “trump” it, but in certain situations, yes, we as a nation value equality more than private property rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a perfect example.
crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Yeh damn the 5th amendment./s

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I think we just found another organization to abolish after 2012…

It was originally established under the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act. But when that was struck down by the Supreme Court as un-Constitutional, the NLRB was established by Executive Order instead. Board members are appointed by the President.

So, all we need is an Executive Order revoking the original one and poof… no more problem!

dominigan on May 17, 2011 at 2:15 PM

I don’t blame you for sticking to a rather narrow point that the NLRB’s actions are within the law. I think if you actually tried to defend their actions as being correct and justified in themselves, you would get chewed up. But you know that don’t you?

Well, I’m sure you’d think you’d have “chewed me up,” but like I said, that’s because your values are completely different from mine (and from much of America), and so things you say would appear inevitable and intuitive to you while things I say would appear shocking and inexplicable. It’d be a waste of time. It’s enough for me to inform you that your views are not inevitable and that in fact, in many instances, they’re completely contrary to current federal law.

Bye-bye Troll.

PackerBronco on May 17, 2011 at 2:07 PM

You seem to be upset, and I’m not sure why. I thought I’ve responded to you fairly, honestly and thoughtfully so far. Perhaps you’re the one who’s reluctant to enter a discussion, lest you get “chewed out”?

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 2:15 PM

The goal of communisum is for the workers to own the means of production and share equally in its profits.

The goal of the unions is control of production, the decisions of the company that effect workers, and a negociated share of the profits.

The unions and communist don’t even bother to hide their associations with each other, both of which support communism.

The goal of communism is to take over the means of production. Forcing the companies to treat the unions as an equal partner is a first step in that direction. How much more would be needed to just move to 51% and take over the company?

Franklyn on May 17, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Of course.
It is incredible to me anyone thinks workers should have a say or stake in the company they work for, just as an employee.
Private businesses are someone else’s property.
Period.
That is why I said above it’d just be easier if the govt just confiscate private property, like Stalin did, & redstribute it to the ‘worker’.
This IS communism, dressed up.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:15 PM

the world would have lost nothing if your mom fell down the stairs at eight months with you inside

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM

SORRY-but that is just wrong.

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Good darwin, you must be crazy. Lefties insist in redistributing your and other’s money, not their own.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Damn, you’re right. I have no idea what cam over me.

Good point by the way. Ever notice how rich democrats, liberals, communists, socialists and activists are?

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Good darwin, you must be crazy. Lefties insist in redistributing your and other’s money, not their own.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Close, Schad, but missed the bullseye.

Lefties believe all money already belongs to them, and if someone should hold on to “too much” of it for too long, they feel obligated..no, required to take it back.

It was never yours to begin with. If you’re going to explain libtard values, you’ll have to start with right set of beliefs.

BobMbx on May 17, 2011 at 2:16 PM

So “looters”= American workers who game the system to work as little as possible and gain as much as possible for the least amonut of effort.
Gotcha.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM
This is what we’re talking about.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Nice post Badger40. What’s really interesting is when you ask a liberal if they support government no-bid contracts with the businesses (Halilburton) and they’ll say “no” and give you all sorts of reasons (good reasons) why no-bid contracts cause corruption and cronyism and rip off the taxpayer etc.

Then, having heard them spout off against businesses and no-bid contracts and nodding in agreement ask them about collective bargaining with public unions which are essentially no-bid contracts with organized labor and watch them squirm trying to square that circle.

PackerBronco on May 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM

How much money could we save if we shut down the NLRB?

stenwin77 on May 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM

the world would have lost nothing if your mom fell down the stairs at eight months with you inside

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Wow look at this crowd of supposed pro-lifers.

Crrs Newphew on May 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 2:18 PM

It doesn’t “trump” it, but in certain situations, yes, we as a nation value equality more than private property rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a perfect example.
crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 2:00 PM

No, we don’t, not yet, for equally we’d fall over the cliff, going under, together.

Those who aim for “equality” are truly sick in their minds.

I actually wish it upon you, but you scum want to live like billionaires, while aiming to equally redistribute the producers’ wealth to your plantation plankton.

I despise YOUR kinds with the most passion possible, and I will fight you until my last breath. May you suffocate from the Utopian idealistic pap you are afflicted with.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 2:18 PM

the world would have lost nothing if your mom fell down the stairs at eight months with you inside

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Come on. That is utter BS.
Stick to being civil, will ya?
crr6 does serve a purpose. She educates us about the shocking ignorance of the world.
Plus she is amusing.
And God willing, someday, she may even grow up & understand finally what real life is like.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Property rights are what make us strong as a nation

what is the point of working harder and striving for high ground when your achievements can be robbed from you by lesser people?

Crr6, you are not wise in the least

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 2:19 PM

I forget, how many of these folks on the NLRB are recess appointments? And why would that be?

Cindy Munford on May 17, 2011 at 2:20 PM

I actually wish it upon you, but you scum want to live like billionaires, while aiming to equally redistribute the producers’ wealth to your plantation plankton.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 2:18 PM

THIS

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 2:20 PM

crr6 does serve a purpose. She educates us about the shocking ignorance of the world.
Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:19 PM

haha.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 2:20 PM

haha.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 2:20 PM

good comeback./

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 2:21 PM

All of those things are embodied in federal law and the Constitution to a certain extent, and so I don’t think either of us are “wrong” or “right.” My only point is, as a descriptive matter, the NLRA favors my norms over yours right now. And if you want to change that you should work to change the law, rather than complaining about the NLRB doing its job and enforcing the law.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:57 PM

The NLRB was originally established under the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act, which was later found to be un-Constitutional by the Supreme Court. The NLRB was later enacted through Executive Order.

Please explain to me how an un-Constitutional, unlawful organization can lawfully enforce the law that its very existence defies?

dominigan on May 17, 2011 at 2:22 PM

collective bargaining with public unions which are essentially no-bid contracts with organized labor and watch them squirm trying to square that circle.

PackerBronco on May 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Here in ND we collectively bargain, but you can also negotiate on your own behalf.
Non-union members just sign off on letting the union members negotiate.
Actually, I think things work really well in a right to work state.
The union here does not have loads of power to screw schools around.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Quit complaining and go buy yourself some justice, Boeing.

Christien on May 17, 2011 at 2:23 PM

haha.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Hey. You should be nice to me. I do not approve of your late abortion.
Everyone in this world has some value.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Please explain to me how an un-Constitutional, unlawful organization can lawfully enforce the law that its very existence defies?

dominigan on May 17, 2011 at 2:22 PM

And while curr is at it, I hope she explains why it’s OK to enforce some laws but not others.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Good point by the way. Ever notice how rich democrats, liberals, communists, socialists and activists are?

darwin on May 17, 2011 at 2:16 PM

That turds like the Obamas, who’ve created absolutely nothing in their deprived lives should live like billionaires, forever, while preaching “welfare” to the moronic masses, and ‘sacrifice’, while they “eat cake”, is the best example of the hype of all ironies.

The left are too stupid or too clever to realize this irony. Fortunately the taxpayers are on to them.

Fight them while it’s not too late.

Hate Marx, Lenin, Engels, and all that followed from there. This is truly the scurge of the Earth.

Don’t confuse the “looters” with the “moochers”.

Looters are the ccr6/Obamas.

Moochers are the ones they keep in the plantation, for votes and for shame. If they’d care to help them, they’d educate them, in more ways than one. Alas, they like their ‘equality’ because it keeps them rich, on the back of the producers.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Under Obama we have the largest food stamp program ever. Yes LOOTERS.

CWforFreedom on May 17, 2011 at 2:28 PM

haha.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 2:20 PM

She finds her looter status entertaining. May she be rewarded, in just ways. She’ll quit laughing then.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 2:28 PM

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.

Thomas Jefferson

As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also.

Thomas Jefferson

old war horse on May 17, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Property rights are what make us strong as a nation

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Absolutely. I once read a study that examined why most third world nations remain third world nations, while others advance out of that. It turns out that property rights are the single largest factor in determining the economic prosperity of a country and its citizens.

Without property rights, individuals have no collateral with which to secure loans to start businesses. So, properties remain undeveloped and employment remained stagnant.

dominigan on May 17, 2011 at 2:30 PM

Here in ND we collectively bargain, but you can also negotiate on your own behalf.
Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Apparently though based on your earlier post there are limits to what you can negotiate based on that “union-inspired” law.

PackerBronco on May 17, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:15 PM

All other things equal, are you implying/justifying a further separation of people who do the work, from the entity that wants the work done?

The part that has them working for that company would imply that they had some stake in its prosperity. It’d be enough to suggest that if they want to keep their job, that they have an active role in the company’s prosperity.

sethstorm on May 17, 2011 at 2:31 PM

the world would have lost nothing if your mom fell down the stairs at eight months with you inside
Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 2:12 PM
Wow look at this crowd of supposed pro-lifers.
Crrs Newphew on May 17, 2011 at 2:17 PM

nice try

I’ll take total responsibility for that, happily

what it and you no doubt promote, is theft, period

I have no problem with the deaths of thieves but these are the lowest form

the scum that would ruin brilliant and hard working people because they want what they have, but don’t have the qualities that form such a person

on the high level of thieves you have politicians and judges and lawyers and of course union garbage that have veered far from our constitution and it’s protections and create laws to give them that which they gave no ability to create themselves

a hangmens noose is to respectable of a finish for these looters

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 2:32 PM

If you want to see what unions can do, just research Fieldcrest-Cannon. They couldn’t afford the unions so they just closed up shop along with 7600 jobs in a town of only 35,000 (Kannapolis, NC). By the way, the NLRB was involved with this.

ReaganWasRight on May 17, 2011 at 2:32 PM

They Just keep pushing and pushing. It has been proven that the most loyal loving wife, after being slapped around and cussed at, and cheated on for so long will turn on her husband and cut of his>>>

I think it is time to cut the Governments >>>>> off and toss it in the ocean.

Bobbitt for those who do not understand.

old war horse on May 17, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Unions are made up of American workers.

HTH.

So apparently hawk thinks working for a living makes you a “looter.” Interesting.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Unions are made up of:

1. Looters, their leadership
2. American workers, who have no say.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Unions are made up of American workers.

HTH.

So apparently hawk thinks working for a living makes you a “looter.” Interesting.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Union members are a (small) subset of American workers, not the other way around.

i.e. The converse of your original statement is not true.

Thus, your conclusion is without merit.

Which is unsurprising, past performance considered.

For homework, research “set theory” and the meaning of the word “apparently”.

HTH

Troll Feeder on May 17, 2011 at 2:38 PM

The part that has them working for that company would imply that they had some stake in its prosperity. It’d be enough to suggest that if they want to keep their job, that they have an active role in the company’s prosperity.

sethstorm on May 17, 2011 at 2:31 PM

They can lower their union demands, or their wages, or move to the company’s new location if they want to keep their jobs.

The NLRA and NLRB are relics of the New Deal that should have been abolished decades ago. We live in a global economy now, and a world where price pretty much trumps everything for consumers. American companies have to compete.

All this NLRB is doing is trying to close the proverbial barn door after a thousand horses have gotten out, because there are one or two stragglers still in there.

rockmom on May 17, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Seriously people, I hate this as much as any of you, but good luck just ignoring laws you decide you don’t like. That nonsense doesn’t even fly when zit-faced teenagers decide they don’t like the speed limit.

Uncle Sams Nephew on May 17, 2011 at 1:50 PM

And yet, the Attorney General of the United States declares that the Dept. of Justice will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, because he (and, by extension, the ‘president’) doesn’t agree with it.

Sauce…goose…gander…etc.

Solaratov on May 17, 2011 at 2:45 PM

The higher wages that Unions negotiate for their members isn’t the biggest hurdle for employers but instead it’s the work rules.

Mandatory overtime for staying a couple of minutes after a shift is over, abuse of sick leave, inablity to fire useless employees and the list goes on and on.

I was union for years and what public union employees got away with on the taxpayer dime was borderline criminal and at least morally wrong. They wouldn’t have lasted a day in the private sector.

JetBlast on May 17, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Crr6, you are not wise in the least

Sonosam on May 17, 2011 at 2:19 PM

She is a Robber Baroness.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 2:49 PM

As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also.
Thomas Jefferson
old war horse on May 17, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Well in Indiana you’re not allowed to do that anymore against agents of the state.

Apparently though based on your earlier post there are limits to what you can negotiate based on that “union-inspired” law.
PackerBronco on May 17, 2011 at 2:31 PM

That part sucks.
And I curse them every day for it.
It also hogties schools bcs they cannot hire the talent they want &/or need.

All other things equal, are you implying/justifying a further separation of people who do the work, from the entity that wants the work done?
The part that has them working for that company would imply that they had some stake in its prosperity. It’d be enough to suggest that if they want to keep their job, that they have an active role in the company’s prosperity.sethstorm on May 17, 2011 at 2:31 PM

I’m not quite sure what you are asking of me here.
I agree with the last part of your statement.
My statement:

It is incredible to me anyone thinks workers should have a say or stake in the company they work for, just as an employee.

was getting at the point that just bcs you work for someone does not mean you own any part of their business enough to tell them how to run it.

Badger40 on May 17, 2011 at 2:52 PM

It was never yours to begin with. If you’re going to explain libtard values, you’ll have to start with right set of beliefs.

BobMbx on May 17, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Indeed, indeed…they are the ‘erudite’ ones, the ‘equality’, ‘empathy’ and ‘for the people’ pimps.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Well in Indiana you’re not allowed to do that anymore against agents of the state.

It’s gotten worse. Hope is waning.

Schadenfreude on May 17, 2011 at 2:54 PM

That part sucks.
And I curse them every day for it.
It also hogties schools bcs they cannot hire the talent they want &/or need.

I would put it more directly than that: “It also hogties the citizens of the state bcs they cannot hire the talent they want &/or need.”

We should never forget that public institutions are our institutions.

PackerBronco on May 17, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Defund the NLRB and put those people on the unemployment line. They are trying to control where business goes. Has anyone noticed, S.C. Republican State. Texas can not get disaster declaration for fires, Republican State. Arizona is being sued by the Federal Government and the NLRB, Republican State. Do you think maybe the Obama Administration might be allowing Partisan Politics in determining how a State is treated. Washington State is so Democrat they almost check your voter registration before allowing you to move there to live.

old war horse on May 17, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4