After Boeing Complaint, NLRB Plans Even More Aggressive Action

Hans von Spakovsky and James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation break disturbing news about the radicalized National Labor Relations Board in a post at NRO’s The Corner blog, “The New NLRB: Boeing Is Just the Beginning”:

An internal NLRB memorandum, dated May 10, shows that the board wants to give unions much greater power over employers and their investment and management decisions.

Under current NLRB rules, companies can make major business decisions (like relocating a plant) without negotiating with their union — as long as those changes are not primarily made to reduce labor costs. For example, a business can unilaterally merge several smaller operations into one larger facility to achieve administrative efficiencies. Companies only have to negotiate working conditions, not their business plans.

The NLRB apparently intends to change that. In the internal memorandum, the board’s associate general counsel, Richard Siegel, asks the NLRB’s regional directors to flag such business-relocation cases. Siegel explains that the Board is considering “whether to propose a new standard” in these situations because the chairman of the NLRB, Wilma Liebman, has expressed her desire to “revisit existing law in this area” by modifying the rule established in a case called Dubuque Packing….

Specifically, the NLRB wants to force companies to provide detailed economic justifications (including underlying cost or benefit considerations) for relocation decisions to allow unions to bargain over them — or lose the right to make those decisions without bargaining over them. It is a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation for unions. Either way, businesses would have to negotiate their investment plans with union bosses.

See also the two’s recent memo at Heritage, “National Labor Relations Board Overreach Against Boeing Imperils Jobs and Investment.” Abstract:

In asserting that the Boeing Company is engaging in unfair labor practices by establishing a new aircraft assembly facility in South Carolina, a right-to-work state, instead of Washington State, which is heavily unionized, the National Labor Relations Board is twisting the law to benefit unions at the expense of the rule of law and the nation’s economy. The NLRB’s decision to issue a complaint represents an unbridled, unauthorized, and unlawful expansion of the regulatory power of an executive agency. If allowed to stand, its actions threaten business investment and job creation as well as the employment of both unionized and nonunion workers. Congress should amend the National Labor Relations Act to reaffirm the long-standing construction of the Act that any new investment decisions—such as (but not limited to) expanding existing facilities, building new plants, or relocating—are not unfair labor practices and are outside the legal jurisdiction of an overzealous NLRB.

Hans will be on Neal Cavuto’s Fox News show this afternoon to discuss today’s column and other developments in the NLRB’s unprecedented complaint against Boeing.

Join the discussion 2 Comments

  • […] efficiencies. Companies only have to negotiate working conditions, not their business plans.http://shopfloor.org/2011/05/after-boeing-complaint-nlrb-plans-even-more-aggressive-action/20914 Tagged as: Big Labor, Boeing, NLRA, NLRB, Right to Work, South Carolina, unfair labor […]

  • armed and dangerous says:

    America is a free country for both its citizens AND its businesses. If a business wants to be non-union, they have EVERY right to be how they want to be and to hire who they want to hire. If they make good choices, the business will flourish. If they make bad choices, it’ll fail. Kind of like Wal Mart. Everyone hates them yet they are THE largest business on the planet and most people shop there (whether they want to admit it or not). If they sucked SO bad, they would fail and certainly wouldn’t be the largest business in the world. The government needs to keep their damn noses out of private business, as should unions. Unions used to be great. I used to be a Teamster member myself. That was “once upon a time ago” though. Now days, unions are just bullies to businesses and non-union workers. I have an idea; EVERYONE should join a union which would neutralize their power and effect. If everyone was a union member, it would have the same outcome as no one being a union member. They would have to have sub-unions within that union to keep the corruption low, kind of like the USA setting-up the 2nd Amendment to assure the government stays in check. The best thing Americans can do to put a final close to this government invasion is to have millions of people go on a tax strike and simply stop paying until they (the 545 IDIOTS in Washington) get their heads out of their asses and stop all of this BS. What are they going to do, round-up and jail a few million working class people that refuse to keep funding all of this BS with their tax money? LMAO. Yeah, that’d be fun to see, especially considering that tax money is what’s needed to pay cops, prison guards, IRS agents, etc. to DO all of that work. No one is going to work for no pay check! Until then, this will just keep going and going until it all comes crashing down… which is the direction we’re headed in.

Leave a Reply