From a leader (editorial) in the latest Economist, “Don’t bully Boeing, Barack,” with the secondary headline, “Want to prove you are ‘pro-business’? Condemn a loony-left complaint against America’s biggest exporter.”

The NLRB is an autonomous body, but its board members are appointed by the president. Under a Democratic president, American businesses expect a more pro-union line, but the agency’s recent militancy is shocking, reminiscent of “loony-left” posturing in Britain in the 1970s. Not only does the agency in effect claim the power to tell firms where they may build factories. It is also suing two states (Arizona and South Dakota) where voters have decided that workers should be guaranteed a secret-ballot election before their workplace is unionised. Mr Obama has so far said nothing about any of these cases. The president claims he understands business. Condemning the NLRB would be a good way to prove it.

The magazine also covers the National Labor Relations Board’s complaint against Boeing in an article, “A watchdog bites: A federal agency bashes Boeing“:

Businesspeople everywhere in America are stunned. Employers have a constitutional right to whinge about unions (and vice versa). They are not allowed to punish strikers—by sacking them, for example. But Boeing has done nothing of the sort. No work has been transferred from Boeing’s Puget Sound plant to South Carolina, nor have any IAM members lost their jobs. In 2007 Boeing announced that it would build seven 787s per month in Puget Sound; two years later, to handle the backlog of orders, it announced an expansion to South Carolina. The backlog is so large that Boeing is increasing its workforce at Puget Sound, not cutting it.

We’d like to see a First Amendment expert address the issue mentioned above, the constitutional right to criticize labor. Articles and blog posts have raised the issue, but we have yet to see a full examination of the free speech implication in the NLRB’s complaint.

The first question posed to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) at an NAM-sponsored event in Pella, Iowa, on Wednesday dealt with the National Labor Relations Board’s complaint against The Boeing Company for locating new production facilities in South Carolina instead of Washington state. (For more on the event, see The Journal Express, “NAM presents Grassley with legislative excellence award.”)

Sen. Grassley responded with sharp criticism, saying, “”If the law lets the NLRB do this, then we need to change the law.”

It’s an important “if.” In filing its complaint against Boeing for locating a new production line for the 787 Dreamliner plane in South Carolina, the NLRB had to ignore 45 years of the board’s own precedent, which clearly established an employer’s legitimate interest in mitigating the impact of strikes. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that interest in two cases, American Ship Building Co. v. NLRB, 380 U.S. 300 (1965) and NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 286 (1965)].

An Administrative Law Judge has scheduled a June 14 hearing on the NLRB’s complaint, which was filed by the board’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, at the instigation of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The NLRB could eventually hear the case and court proceedings are certainly possible, despite the complaint being “legally frivolous” as Boeing characterized it in a tough statement after the Solomon’s action.

But what if? In a very helpful review of the law, the National Review’s Robert VerBruggen describes the vague and poorly written National Labor Relations Act and the process now facing Boeing. (continue reading…)