AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka speaks at a National Press Club luncheon on Friday, an appearance billed thusly:

Trumka will speak out on recent efforts to curb collective bargaining rights in several states, including Wisconsin and Ohio. He also will discuss the political outlook for the 2012 elections, and the impact of austerity budgets on local, state and federal workers.

All good topics. Here are a few others that the reporters could raise during the Q&A period that traditionally follows Press Club remarks.

• In a January 2010 National Press Club appearance you said: “I think you will see the Employee Free Choice Act pass in the first quarter of 2010.” And …”The president fully supports the Employee Free Choice Act, the Vice President fully supports the Employee Free Choice Act, a vast majority of the members of the House support the Employee Free Choice Act, a vast majority of the people of the Senate support the Employee Free Choice Act. And I think we are going to have the Employee Free Choice Act despite the determined efforts of the Republican Party.” So were you shining us on, deceiving your membership for tactical reasons, or are you just a lousy prognosticator? Did the failure of card check reflect organized labor’s lack of political influence? Your own lack of influence?



AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka addresses anti-coal crowd at April rally. (Photo: Energy Action Coalition)

• You began your career as a coal miner and served as President of the United Mine Workers before being elected to head the AFL-CIO. Yet at an April “Power Shift” rally in front of the White House, you joined environmental activists in demanding “clean energy” policies in which coal has no role. Demonstrators held signs declaring “Coal is Over” and “No More Coal!” (More photos here and here.) How can you, as a union president, make common cause with activists who want to shut down the coal industry?

• AFL-CIO affiliated unions are members of the Blue-Green Alliance, which includes such organizations as the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Many people regard these groups as hostile to the industrial base of this nation’s economy. How do you reconcile union support for this alliance? According to a Department of Commerce study, green products and services account for at most 2 percent of private sector activity. How you can justify spending member dues on groups who have such a narrow focus and whose policies would eliminate unionized jobs in the energy and manufacturing sectors?

• Do you believe nuclear power has a role in America’s future energy production? Because AFL-CIO member unions are sending member dues to a group that includes the Union of Concerned Scientists, one of the major opponents of nuclear energy.

• Should a company that currently has unionized operations in a state ever be allowed to locate new operations in a right-to-work state?

In a Senate floor speech Tuesday, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) discussed U.S. competitiveness and the trend of “on-shoring” manufacturing jobs as described in the recent Economist article, “Moving back to America –The dwindling allure of building factories offshore.”

Unfortunately, the health care law adds to business costs, and the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, Alexander noted. Now, the National Labor Relations Board’s complaint against The Boeing Company sends a clear signal to large companies: Beware doing business in a United States burdened by this kind of anti-competitive government action.

[We] have a regulation from the National Labor Relations Board that may have the effect of law for 2 to 5 years that says it is prima facie evidence of an unfair labor practice if a company that is producing in a union State expands or moves to a right-to-work State. This is an assault on every middle-income Tennessean and on millions of middle-income Americans who have manufacturing jobs–certainly, everyone in the 22 right-to-work States. But as the Boeing chief executive said, it could be just as much of a disincentive to a State such as Michigan or Illinois or some other State that does not have a right-to-work law because why would you put a plant in Michigan if later you would not be allowed to put it in Tennessee? (continue reading…)

How could we have gone three days without a post on the radicalized National Labor Relations Board? Well, there really have been few developments after last Thursday’s hearing in the Senate HELP Committee, “The Endangered Middle Class: Is the American Dream Slipping Out of Reach for American Families?,” which turned into a hearing on Boeing and the NLRB.

Mostly the story has percolated as new columnists catch up on the issue, as in George Will’s excellent piece over the weekend, “The Dreamliner nightmare.” (Datelined North Charleston, S.C., which means he was there. We saw Will rushing through Union Station last week, looking quite fit for a scribe who just celebrated his 70th birthday. Congratulations!)

The major substantive development was the introduction of S. 964, the Job Protection Act, by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) on Thursday, May 12. In his floor speech (here), Alexander explained:

The Job Protection Act, which I introduce today on behalf of 34 Senators, would preserve the Federal law’s current protection of State right-to-work laws in the National Labor Relations Act and provide necessary clarity to prevent the NLRB from moving forward in their case against Boeing or attempting a similar strategy against other companies.

Specifically, the Job Protection Act would, first, explicitly clarify that the board cannot order an employer to relocate jobs from one location to another; two, it guarantees an employer the right to decide where to do business within the United States; and, three, it protects an employer’s free speech regarding the costs associated with having a unionized workforce without fear of such communication being used as evidence in an anti-union discrimination suit.

Sen. Alexander announced general plans for the bill on May 4, and it appears he and his colleagues used the time since to craft a solid piece of legislation.

We appreciate the Senator’s mention of the First Amendment protections, a underreported part of this controversy. The NLRB seeks to punish Boeing in part because several top executives spoke openly about the business costs of labor disruptions. If the board’s complaint stands, company executives could be deprived of their rights to say things like, “We’re concerned that a strike could make it hard to deliver our products and make us less competitive.” That’s not a threat of retaliation, that’s a statement of opinion that should always be protected free speech.

Elsewhere, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley was on ABC’s This Week on Sunday. In a discussion of the 2012 campaigns and Republican candidates, she also repeated her call for a comment on the NLRB’s complaint from President Obama. (continue reading…)

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…. (continue reading…)

In promoting his new online column, “The Persecution of Boeing,” National Review Editor Rich Lowry commented in NRO’s The Corner blog:

The NLRB is on very tenuous ground here and will almost certainly lose in court. But one expert in these matters was telling me yesterday he wouldn’t be surprised if the game is to try to harass Boeing into agreeing to some sort of card check-like process to unionize the South Carolina facility.

That would consistent with our observation in the May 10 post, “NLRB Already Talking About ‘Settlement’ in Boeing Case.”

The term of art is a “neutrality agreement,” in which a company agrees with a labor union not to request a secret-ballot election if the union attempts to organize a facility. Often management goes that route after suffering a corporate campaign (or threat of a corporate campaign) in which the union blackens the reputations of the company and its executives.

But in this case, it’s the National Labor Relations Board leading the corporate campaign in support of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

The strategy make sense politically: Attack the critics, pummel the opposition into staying quiet. You can see it being played out in Congress, too. On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), evoked the Founding Fathers and “checks and balances” into decrying any criticism of the NLRB. From The Congressional Record:

This kind of interference is inappropriate, it is disgraceful and dangerous.We wouldn’t allow threats to prosecutors or U.S. attorneys trying to stop them from moving forward with charges they see fit to bring to the courts, and we shouldn’t stand for this. It may not be illegal, but it is no better than the retaliation and intimidation that is the fundamental question in this case, and it should stop.

The Founders are telling critics of the NLRB to shut up? Well, in this case, it’s Congress and the states in the form of attorneys general that are providing the checks and balances to restrain a runaway federal agency.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) followed up Wednesday on the Senate floor, arguing in effect that the NLRB should be above criticism because it is an independent Executive Branch agency. The Senator conceded he did not know all the facts of the case, but knocked Boeing around and made the union’s arguments. He then declared: (continue reading…)

From today’s White House press briefing conducted by Jay Carney:

Q Boeing CEO Jim McNerney, who chairs the President’s Export Council, said the National Labor Relations Board suit against his company for building a plant in a right-to-work state is a fundamental assault on capitalism. I’m wondering is the President aware of the issue, and does he think the government should be involved in how businesses allocate capital or resources?

MR. CARNEY: Well, it’s obviously been in the news, so we are aware of it, but I would refer any questions about it to the NLRB because it is an independent agency, and we do not get involved in particular enforcement matters of independent agencies.

Q The President has weighed in on outside issues before, though. I mean is this something — it’s also coming from someone who is chairing the Export Council, who’s saying this is hurting job creation.

MR. CARNEY: I don’t have a reaction to this from the President. And I think the fact that he’s weighed in on outside issues doesn’t mean that he will weigh in on an independent agency’s enforcement action.

Carney then changed the subject to tout the President’s record on the auto industry and hail the growth of manufacturing.

The National Labor Relations Board is indeed an independent executive branch agency, one that is not directly answerable to the President. But there’s nothing stopping the President from expressing disapproval of a complaint that threatens a multi-billion-dollar investment, sows economic uncertainty, and could fundamentally change the business climate in the United States, making us less competitive. The President enjoys the same free speech rights as everyone else — except for Boeing executives talking about business decisions, apparently — and he can comment.

How about this instead from Carney? “The President is aware of this issue. While he does not presume to instruct an independent agency how to proceed, the President is very troubled by the implications for jobs and economic growth of the NLRB’s complaint. Some members of Congress are discussing a legislative response to make sure the federal government does not hinder the expansion of companies anywhere in the United States. The President is watching those efforts with interest.”

Or: “It seems like a very bad idea, what the NLRB is doing. I hope Lafe Solomon, my appointee as acting general counsel, reconsiders his complaint.”

Jim McNerney, president and CEO of The Boeing Company, refutes the complaint against the company by the National Labor Relations Board in an op-ed to be published in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal. The column, “Boeing Is Pro-Growth, Not Anti-Union,” also delineates the threat that the NLRB’s unprecedented complaint represents to U.S. competitiveness. Excerpt:

The NLRB is wrong and has far overreached its authority. Its action is a fundamental assault on the capitalist principles that have sustained America’s competitiveness since it became the world’s largest economy nearly 140 years ago. We’ve made a rational, legal business decision about the allocation of our capital and the placement of new work within the U.S. We’re confident the federal courts will reject the claim, but only after a significant and unnecessary expense to taxpayers.

More worrisome, though, are the potential implications of such brazen regulatory activism on the U.S. manufacturing base and long-term job creation. The NLRB’s overreach could accelerate the overseas flight of good, middle-class American jobs.

See also Boeing’s “final answer” filed in response to the  (available here) to the NLRB’s complaint and the company’s letter last week rebutting assertions made by the NLRB’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley was in Washington today to draw national attention to the National Labor Relations Board’s unjustified and unprecedented complaint against The Boeing Company for locating new production facilities in South Carolina instead of unionized Washington State.

“We’ve got to make sure that we are responding to this in a strong way,” the Republican governor said at a news conference hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “We have to do it in a loud way and the president owes it to the state of South Carolina and every state in the country on what he’s going to do in reference to what the NLRB has done against Boeing. While Boeing may be the first company, you know, I don’t think this will be the last company.”

Haley was joined by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Rand Paul (R-KY), Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), and South Carolina’s Attorney General Alan Wilson.

Gov. Nikki Haley speaks to NAM's Joe Trauger

Business was also well represented with leaders from the Chamber, Business Roundtable, HR Policy Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers, all cited in the joint news release issued by the Chamber, “Business Leaders, Governor, Members of Congress Express Serious Concern with NLRB Complaint Against Boeing.” (To say the least.) The NAM’s Joe Trauger, vice president for human resources policy, said:

Manufacturers are alarmed by the recent action of the NLRB and the dangerous new precedent being set. This action is effectively a ban on companies from expanding in right-to-work states if they now have production facilities in a state with union representation. Companies are deeply concerned about the impact this complaint will have on their operations and ability to create jobs. The NLRB is reversing 45 years of its own precedent and calling into question companies’ fundamental business decisions on where to expand or whom to hire.

News coverage …

• CNN Political Ticker, “Top Republicans demand Obama weigh in on Boeing dispute“
• Bloomberg, “Republicans Seek Obama Response on NLRB’s Boeing Complaint“
• Daily Caller, “GOP Senators, SC Gov. Nikki Haley call on Obama to address NLRB’s Boeing case“

Yes, elected officials, business groups and the public are continuing to speak out against the National Labor Relation Board’s unprecedented and extreme complaint against The Boeing Company, even though NLRB’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, issued a statement Monday trying to silence the storm of criticism against the board.

Solomon’s statement also signaled the NLRB’s lack of confidence in the merits of its case.

The Associated Press reports, “Gov. Haley heads to Washington for Boeing battle“:

COLUMBIA (WACH, AP)- Governor Nikki Haley, members of Congress, U.S. Chamber of Commerce officials and business association leaders will hold a press conference on Tuesday in Washington, D.C.to discuss concerns relating to the National Labor Relations Board complaint against the Boeing Company.

Joe Trauger, vice president for human resource policy for the National Association of Manufacturers, will participate in the 11:30 a.m. event. Other speakers from the business side are Business Roundtable President John Engler; the Chamber’s Randy Johnson, senior vice president of labor, immigration, and employee benefits; and Dan Yager, chief policy officer and general counsel at HR Policy Association.

In his statement Monday, Solomon urged “all interested parties [to] respect the legal process, rather than trying to litigate this case in the media and public arena.” The NAM’s Trauger already pointed out the arrogance represented by a government official like Solomon attempting to silence criticism after all he and the NLRB have done to promote their arguments “in the media and public arena.”

Solomon’s statement is interesting for another reason, his invocation of the word “settlement.”

It is important to note that the issuance of a complaint is just the beginning of a legal process, which now moves to a hearing before an administrative law judge. That hearing, scheduled for June 14 in Seattle, is the appropriate time and place to argue the merits of the complaint. The judge’s decision can further be appealed to the Board, and ultimately to the federal courts. At any point in this process, the parties could reach a settlement agreement and we remain willing to participate in any such discussions at the request of either or both parties.

Such a prominent appeal to “settlement” is highly unusual, perhaps unprecedented, knowledgeable observers tell us.

We read the statement to be Solomon acknowledging the weakness of the NLRB’s complaint against Boeing, which he filed at the behest of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. This is the equivalent of a prosecutor saying, “We are confident in the strength of our case, but you know, there’s a judge, and it’s kind of hard, and maybe we’ll reach a deal or the charges might be dropped, because … A settlement would be really, really good, we think.”

Better idea: The NLRB should resist the political pressure from the labor unions and the Obama Administration and just withdraw the complaint, apologize and move on.

Recent Shopfloor.org posts:

• Boeing Complaint: Hatch Challenges Appointment, Authority of NLRB’s General Counsel
• Pressure Mounts Over ‘Preposterous’ NLRB Complaint Against Boeing
• Boeing Files Formal Response, Refutes NLRB’s Facts, Legal Claims
• Boeing Calls NLRB’s General Counsel to Account for Falsehoods
• NLRB’s Complaint Against Boeing Inspires Senators’ Legislation

Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon of the National Labor Relations Board today released a statement asserting there is “nothing remarkable or unprecedented about the complaint issued against Boeing Company on April 20.”

Perhaps telling businesses where they can expand and chilling future capital investment is unremarkable to the Acting General Counsel, but it is certainly unprecedented.  The release of such a defensive statement by Mr. Solomon on an active case raises the question of whether the NLRB is starting to doubt the merits of its complaint.

While admonishing others who have raised questions or concerns about the complaint against “litigating this case in the public arena” the Acting General Counsel conveniently leaves out the news releases, “fact checks,” tweets and other materials issued by his office on this matter.  Are businesses and their associations supposed to sit down and shut up while an appointed board injects itself into fundamental business decisions about where to locate and whom to hire? Should the government be allowed to expend taxpayer dollars to damage a company’s reputation and force it to seek legal recourse without question?

Solomon probably just wants to avoid pointed inquiries about the NLRB’s preposterous complaint and the message it sends to other industries operating in the United States.

And in fact, he is scheduled to speak Tuesday in Chicago at a chapter meeting of the Labor and Employment Relations Association. The topic? “Recent Developments at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB),” promoted on an association flyer with, “Both the National Labor Relations Board and the Board’s General Counsel have implemented numerous changes in federal labor law, encompassing a wide range of procedural and substantive areas. Please join the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon, for a presentation and discussion regarding recent developments at the Board.”

But no questions about Boeing, please. (continue reading…)