The NLRB is at it Again

Want more proof that the Obama Administration is in the union’s back pockets (Click here)? The National Labor Relations Board is putting together a policy that would publish the names and addresses of non-union members who are contracted to fill positions vacated by striking union workers.

At the link, the post gives you an opportunity to go to the NLRB’s comment site and leave a comment of support or non-support of this new policy. I did leave a comment. But the scary thing is they want your address. I will not be surprised if I receive some form of harassment because of my actions.

Union on Union Action (UPDATE)

See Update below the fold

Do we have the first incident of violence from the unions in response to Hoffa SOB comment? Longshoremen in Longview, WA (Just down the road from PACNW Righty) stormed a grain loading facility, taking security guards hostage, damaging railcars and other equipment, and threatening law enforcement officers with baseball bats.

OK, we have had many incidents of violence from union thugs, so it is quite possible we can’t lay the blame at Hoffa’s doorstep. But the timing does seem a bit odd. What I find even stranger, was these union protesters were protesting against other unions. Yes, you heard that right, the Longshoremen were taking out their rage against another union.

Despite a restraining order against the union, brought about by threats vocalized last week, the Longshoremen still were able to bring port operations to a halt.

Furthermore, Longshoremen actions have basically brought port operations to a halt in both Portland and the Puget Sound region.

I'd like to point out something here. These Longshoremen are acting if those jobs belong to them and the union. They are saying that it is their right to work at the port.. But it appears that the shipping company and the Port of Longview feel differently. As long as union members feel they work for the union and not the company that hired them, these troubles will persist. The jobs belong to the company that is providing them, not to the individual and to the unions.

UPDATE:

A Few Links for You

Here are a few interesting links to get your blood to boil a little bit.

1. A political appointee in the Labor Department has decided “with a stroke of the pen” that any project, private of public, that is built on federally leased lands is subject to the Davis-Bacon Act. The Davis-Bacon Act stipulates that any public (i.e. federally funded in whole or in part) works contract must pay prevailing wage, which is generally the highest union wage in the local area. As you might guess, this is probably going to create even more uncertainty in the economy. The American Thinker has more here.

2. When was the last time you found a conservative developing a game that targets for death anyone of the opposition party? I can’t seem to come with any examples either. It does appear that if you are a leftist you now have an online game where you can kill zombies made to look like leading Republicans such as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Somehow, this really does seem worse than a Palin campaign ad saying certain districts need to be targeted for a change in leadership. I could be wrong. Nah.

It Just Doesn't Stop

Would somebody please tell me this is not happening. I cannot believe the level of corruption that is so endemic throughout this administration. This kind of corruption is one of the reasons why President Obama is so loathed by the right. His progressive-stacked National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just recently mandated that unions can basically form in a work place without the consent of the workers. Yes, you heard that right. The unions, who supposedly are for the "working man", are going to shaft the working man and woman by negotiating directly with the employer, leaving out the employees.

American's didn't want it, Congress wasn't going to pass it, and he wouldn't dare do it by executive order. So what happens? The NLRB does Obama's and union's bidding. Now a union can form in a work place without the consent of the workers.

A few years ago, as it was looking like Obama was going to be the democrat nominee and more than likely the next president, I got into an e-mail discussion with the editor of a prominent conservative web site. He was actually pulling for Obama to win, not because he liked Obama's politics, quite the opposite in fact. But his feeling was that a term with a progressive in the White House would reawaken the conservative majority in this country the same way that four years of Carter ushered in Reagan. My argument back to him, while agreeing with his points in principle, was the concern I had about the amount of damage Obama and Pelosi could do to this country during that period of time. I was also concerned there was not another Reagan-like individual out there.

Is the NLRB Stonewalling Boeing Investigation?

I have been trying to follow the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) suit brought against Boeing for attempting to move part of the 787 Dreamliner manufacturing process to South Carolina. South Carolina is a right-to-work state, which gives workers the choice whether or not they want to join a union. The NLRB, as an extension of Obama’s pro-union platform, is very much against Boeing building the plane in South Carolina.

Previous Posts:

Boeing, NLRB Update

Turning the Table on the NLRB

PACNW Righty Speaks to the Court (In My Dreams)

NLRB Puts Boeing’s SC Factory in Jeopardy

The NLRB’s actions have garnered attention in the House, with Rep Dan Issa (R-CA) chairing an oversight committee charged with looking into the possibility that the NLRB has over stepped it’s charter and brought the suit not because of any wrongdoing on the part of Boeing, but because the unions ask them.

It looks like the NLRB is stonewalling the oversight committee (big surprise there). Rep Issa has requested documents pertaining to the case and so far it looks like the NLRB has not turned over the all the documents as requested.

Boeing, NLRB Update

I have been trying to provide updates and analysis on the on-going dispute between Boeing and the National Labor Relations Board.  In a nutshell, the NLRB has filed a complaint against Boeing that could prevent Boeing from opening a new 787 Dreamliner production line in South Carolina.

In response to the NLRB’s actions the president and CEO of Boeing Jim McNerney posted a letter in the Wall Street Journal.  Well worth a read since it gives a completely different perspective. I’m sure the truth lays somewhere in between what McNerney writes and the complaint filed by the NLRB. Give the very distinct pro-union and anti-business stances of the Obama Administration I have a strong feeling the balance of the truth is much closer to McNerney’s take. (Link via Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post)

And speaking of Jennifer Rubin, read her full article here.  She provides an interesting take on how this issue, if projected properly could be a huge issue in the 2012 Presidential election.

I think the outcome of this issue will have far-reaching impact on the business climate in the US. If the NLRB is able to prevail, this will more than likely send shockwaves through the business community. If the unions are able to apply and win with this kind of government intervention, what other business moves will the unions try to stop? If a business wants to move out of a high tax state like California, Illinois, or New York would the unions try to get the federal government to step in a stop the move?

One thing union leadership has never been able to reconcile in their little brains is that the jobs do not belong to them. The jobs belong to the company or business that creates them. If the business wants to move to a better business climate, say a right to work state, that is within their right to do so. But if the unions have their way this will no longer be the case.

Turning the Table on the NLRB

A very interesting take on the actions taken by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against Boeing and Boeing’s desire to move part of the 787 Dreamliner production to South Carolina, a right-to-worker state. The author suggests that the workers of South Carolina use the same tactics being used by the labor unions to make the NLRB pick either the labor unions or the workers in general.

See the background here and here (or you can click on the NLRB label on the left side of my blog).

Weekend Links (I Know, It's Monday Already)

LOCAL:

1. Limiting Debt in Washington State.  A proposed state constitutional amendment would limit the amount of debt the state can carry from year to year at about 5%.  Currently the percentage is about 6%. Most of the borrowing is to fund large-scale construction projects such as schools and highways.

In a typical democrat moment Hans Dunshee, a democrat from north of Seattle, said he didn’t think this amendment is such a good idea at a time when more taxpayer money needs to be spent to get us out of the recession.

Dunshee says the proposal would tie the legislature’s hands and reduce spending on construction at a time when builders could use the work

“As it’s currently constructed, it (the amendment) kills off a lot of jobs.  Is that really what we want to do over the next 10 years?” he said. (Source: Seattle Times)

2. Seattle School scandal takes out another. Seattle Urban League, which has helped minority-owned businesses get government contracts, has reduced staff and is considering selling its headquarters building in the wake of the Seattle Schools Superintendent scandal earlier this year.

PACNW Righty Speaks to the Court (In My Dreams Only)

Peter Schaumber, a former chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, has said that the NLRB’s attempt to interfere with Boeing’s attempt to open another 787 Dreamliner factory in South Carolina is “unprecedented”. (See my previous post)

NLRB officials are saying Boeing’s decision to move part of the 787 production to SC is a move against unions and that is not legal. Business can make decisions that are in the best economic interest for the company.  But in the opinion of the NLRB, if a business makes a decision to move to a state that is a right-to-work state, like SC, that might be illegal. There are some e-mails from Boeing officials that give the NLRB some traction, but in the mind of Schaumber there is “no basis” for the claim that Boeing is retaliating against the unions.

Maybe since I am not a lawyer and live my life based on common sense, the sense that liberal lawyers live their lives by are hard for me to understand. I think that Boeing’s arguments should be a no brainer. I’d stand in front of the judge and say:

Obama Leaves Critical IG Positions Unfilled

If one were at all cynical one might ask why the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor don’t have Inspectors General. In President Obama’s continued war on government transparency, he has left 12 IG positions open. The two IG positions mentioned above just happen to be at agencies that are struggling with a perception of possible corruption at the worst and mismanagement if one were to be charitable.

Both agencies could be considered out of control. The Justice Department has given the appearance of deciding which cases to pursue based on the racial makeup of the parties and they are up to their necks in dodo over the Project Gunrunner fiasco. The Department of Labor is having its own issues such as issuing directives that give unions more freedoms and hinder businesses.

Adding more to the pile, prosecutions are also down over the past few years.

NLRB Puts Boeing's SC Factory in Jeopardy

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has told Boeing that it cannot build a factory in South Carolina.  The NY Times has the full story here.

In its complaint, the labor board said that Boeing’s decision to transfer a second production line for its new 787 Dreamliner passenger plane to South Carolina was motivated by an unlawful desire to retaliate against union workers for their past strikes in Washington and to discourage future strikes. The agency’s general council, Lafe Solomon, said it was illegal for companies to take actions in reallocation against workers for exercising their right to strike. (Source: NY Times)

One thing I will have to say about this decision is that it does meet the “transparency” requirements so often talked about by President Obama. The transparency lies in that the decision is so obviously pro-union. Obama hired radical pro-union people to run the NLRB through recess appointments. The NLRB has become increasingly hostile towards businesses that don’t have unions. Here is an example:

Information on proposals expected from the Office of Labor Management Standards that would require employers to disclose the details of when the engage in “persuader activities” and plans to “reconsider” (i.e. limit) the types of efforts engaged by employers to comply with labor laws that are not currently required to be disclosed. Note: the administration previously removed a set of disclosure requirements for union organizations citing the burden they posed for labor leaders to comply. (Source: The Blaze)

South Carolina is a “right-to-work” state, i.e. you don’t have to join the union to work if you don’t want to. Non-union shops are cheaper to operate. Not so much because labor is cheaper, which arguably it isn’t, but ideas from workers flow easier to management without the interference of the shop stewards.  Rather than working for the unions as union members feel they do, the employees work for the company, which gives them a vested interest in seeing the company prosper.

As Obama continues to reward the unions that elected him, the rest of American continues to push back against that tide. The only question is who will win the narrative? Will Obama and his crew be able to continue to make a case that this is a supposed fight against the middle class? Or will those of us who know the unions have long outlived their usefulness be able to show the American people just how much damage the unions have done to America?

Unions are a dying institution, not necessary anymore. There are so many federal agencies that regulate safety and working conditions that the original reasons for the unions disappeared long ago. While is true that unions forced wages up in all sectors, whether unionized or not, there is now a back lash in the business community. Jobs are being forced overseas as union wages became too high. Whole industries have shutdown. We are no longer the leader in manufacturing automobiles. Even though the US imposes HUGE tariffs on foreign automobile makers, they are more than able to cover the cost because labor costs are lower elsewhere. Ford has moved a major factory to Brazil (Fiesta, I believe) because the labor force is cheaper. And Brazil is glad to have the jobs as they are very paying in comparison. We no longer are the leader in the production of steel. Japan and China took that from us long ago. Even though Japan has to import nearly all the raw materials to make steel, they still make it cheaper (even with additional shipping cost for the finished product) than we do. Heck, when the incandescent bulb was outlawed, it only impacted one small company. Most light bulb manufacturing moved overseas long ago because it was too expensive to make them here.

If the unions have their way, our last truly great industry, airplane building, will go the way of steel and automobiles.  Can you imagine having the 787 built in China?