Few Democratic members of Congress have spoken up on the National Labor Relations Board’s unprecedented and extreme complaint against The Boeing Company for making a reasonable, legitimate management decision by building new production facilities in South Carolina. It’s a tough decision to defend, so those commenting have relied on a “process” argument — let the process work.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hailed the NLRB as an example of the “checks and balances” envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) levied accusations, claiming, “Powerful corporate interests are pressuring Members of this body to interfere with an independent agency rather than letting it run its course.”

On Thursday, it was Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s turn to come to the Senate floor to defend the NLRB. The Connecticut Democrat made the most coherent, seriously framed argument based on process we’ve seen: “The NLRB and Lafe Solomon, the acting general counsel, have not only the right but the responsibility to investigate and act where the facts and the law establish a right and obligation to do so. So no one should be trying to prejudge this case before it goes before the administrative judge, and no one should be seeking a pass from the appropriate process, and no one should be seeking to intimidate or to interfere with this lawful proceeding. I come to the floor today because of the prospect of exactly that danger  occurring.”

Yet one specific example Blumenthal cites is the decision by Chairman Darrel Issa (R-CA) of the House Oversight Committee to request documents on the Boeing complaint from the NLRB. But that’s the only example. Otherwise, the Senator seems to objecting to other elected officials publicly criticizing a federal agency.

These actions and some others are an attack on the integrity of the NLRB, an attack on its ability to make decisions and enforce the law as the Congress has instructed it and required it to do based on decisions involving the facts and the law alone. The NLRB is part of our justice system, and it should be given the opportunity to do justice in this instance. It should be given the opportunity to protect fairness and peace at the workplace, which is ultimately its mandate and its very solemn responsibility, and its tradition.

The NLRB is part of our justice system? Really? It does not behave that way. You have the NLRB’s public affairs office issuing press releases announcing the agency’s rulings against business and posting “Fact Checks” that are just political spin. Lafe Solomon commented publicly on the case, restating Boeing’s supposed offenses, before he retreated behind the protection of “let the process work.”

The agency is behaving as a political actor, and the complaint against Boeing is so at odds with the board’s mandate, solemn responsibility and tradition — to use Blumenthal’s terms — that silence would be an abdication of Congress’ oversight and policymaking responsibilities. If the NLRB’s complaint stands, the federal government will replace management in determining company locations and hiring. Such a radical restructuring of the U.S. economy and such an extreme expansion of federal power is at heart a policy matter, which in our system of government is the purview of Congress.

When an agency runs amok like the NLRB has done, it has abandoned process. That’s why the process arguments made by its defenders are just beside the point.

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…)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) has chaired a series of hearings by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to pummel for-profit, private colleges as exploiters of students and the working class. The hearings reinforce the Obama Administration’s regulatory “crack down” on the institutions, which attempts to deny their students access to federal financial aid.

One of the primary documents used to justify these attacks was a report delivered last August to the Senate HELP Committee from the Government Accounting Agency. As Mark Hyman chronicles at The Washington Examiner, the report, which lambasted the colleges’ financial aid practices, proved to so flawed — a “fraud” — that the GAO withdrew it and quietly reissued a new report. Still, the continuing attacks and Obama Administration’s regulations caused the educational companies’ stocks to drop. And now we learn of serious allegations of insider trading at the Department of Education.

As Hyman calls it, it’s “the biggest GAO scandal you never heard about.” (See also Heritage’s Tina Korbe, “Government made major revisions to for-profit colleges report, didn’t tell public.”)

Alarms have been raised about recruiters making misleading pitches and students surprised by the debt they assumed. OK, let’s apply regulation, oversight, enforcement and a renewed sense of caveat emptor to put a stop to the practices.

But we also know that for-profit colleges provide a valuable educational resource for many students, especially adults looking for new career paths or training not immediately available elsewhere. These schools adapt to the needs of the students. Yet these  businesses offering a service to willing buyers are being demonized in the political sphere. (continue reading…)

From The Hill, “Groups allied with the Democrats go for broke“:

The ACLU is lobbying the Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which is expected to come up for a cloture vote as soon as Wednesday. The measure, which already passed the House, is designed to close the wage gap between men and women in the workplace. 

Last week, the civil rights group sent a letter to senators saying that the group would be “scoring both the cloture vote and the vote on the merits” when the bill comes up for debate. 

Odd. We had always thought the ACLU was a “civil liberties” organization defending the Bill of Rights, but here they are pushing legislation to redistribute wealth via federal mandates and lawsuits against employers. It’s almost as if they’re a generic left-wing outfit, not a civil rights group at all.

Anyway, The Hill’s story cites the National Association of Manufacturers’ “Key Vote” letter against the Paycheck Fairness Act, S. 3772.

The Wall Street Journal also publishes a good op-ed (subscription) on the legislation by June O’Neill of the American Enterprise Institute, “Washington’s Equal Pay Obsession: There’s no epidemic of gender discrimination. So why is Congress proposing another law?”

Women in the workplace don’t face rampant pay discrimination, and yet the Senate may soon pass a bill—already passed in the House—premised on the erroneous charge that they do. The Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) would be a harmful addition to the many federal laws that already protect women and men from labor-market discrimination.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) gave a floor speech Monday anticipating Wednesday’s cloture vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act. It’s just the start, he suggests. Next, the Fair Pay Act!

A group of Congressional Democrats today announced legislation to make a broad array of changes to workplace safety laws. While the bill primarily seeks to overhaul existing mine safety laws, it includes several onerous provisions taken from the long-pending Protecting America’s Workers Act. Such proposals are simply not the right approach to assist both employers and employees in maintaining safe workplaces.

Instead of promoting a cooperative approach toward workplace safety, the provisions laid out in the Miner Safety and Health Act of 2010 take a punitive approach.

Senators Johnny Isakson and Mike Enzi rightfully point out that today’s efforts stray from previous efforts to develop comprehensive bi-partisan approaches to safety issues, like had been done in 2006. They argue, “Instead of pursuing that productive approach, Democrats have chosen to introduce a sweeping piece of legislation that affects every business in this country and only amplifies the adversarial role of OSHA and MSHA, without increasing safety.”

The proponents of the draft legislation say their motivation comes from the tragedy that occurred at the Upper Big Branch mine, but it’s a mistake to treat such unfortunate incidents as anything other than exceptions. Members of Congress should recognize that for decades, America’s manufacturers have improved the safety of their workplaces. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, incident rates for workplace illnesses and injuries have improved 54 percent since 1994. During this same time frame, workplace fatalities in manufacturing facilities have decreased 38 percent.

Included in this proposal is language that would enable OSHA inspectors to shut down operations and force employers to make changes to their workplaces in response to alleged hazards that may be identified by an inspector. Yet for each day it took the employers to put the required changes into effect, they would be fined $7,000 and, at the same time, not have the ability to appeal the decision of the inspector if his assessment is incorrect. Such an approach represents a huge blow to the due process rights that are inherent in our legal system.

Proponents are focusing their attention on mine safety, but in reality, this package would represent be one of the most sweeping changes to the OSH Act since its inception. In many ways the proposal would actually hinder the safety efforts by manufacturers by promoting an adversarial relationship between OSHA and the employers. We hope that Members of Congress will recognize that this is the wrong approach to our shared goal of making our workplaces safer and threatens the continued trend of improved safety. Placing further burdens on employers at a time when manufacturers are attempting to regain their economic footing hinders our ability to create and retain jobs.

As the Senate was preparing to adjourn for the Memorial Day recess period, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) sought to bring a package of nominees before the Senate to be passed by unanimous consent. This often takes place when there is a backlog of military nominations and other non-controversial nominees.

But this time was different.

Harkin, who chairs the Senate HELP Committee with jurisdiction over labor nominees, attempted once again to seat Craig Becker to the powerful National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) by including Mr. Becker in this package. Senate had previously reacted to Mr. Becker’s views that are well outside the mainstream of legal thought with a bipartisan vote to oppose moving his nomination forward. Craig Becker’s extensive academic writings manifest radical points of view that go counter to decades of established labor law and indicate his willingness to use the NLRB to implement the goals of labor’s highest priority – the Employee Free Choice Act.

President Obama then made a recess appointment of Becker and another Democratic nominee, Buffalo labor lawyer Mark Pearce, to the NLRB over the Easter recess.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell blocked Sen. Harkin’s recent attempt at Becker’s confirmation by opposing the “unanimous consent” request, citing Becker’s views as well as the process to seat him – the recess appointment that circumvented the Senate’s will.

As we’ve reported previously the President appointed Mr. Becker to the Board during the Easter recess – after the Senate rejected moving forward with the nomination. James Fallows with The Atlantic notes that Sen. Harkin’s attempts to include Becker nomination further holds up a host of other nominees that are pending confirmation.

Labor leaders and their allies are dead set on implementing the Employee Free Choice Act at all costs – even if that means doing so incrementally through the Board and other Federal agencies. Sen. Harkin’s latest move is further evidence that employers and employees who object to the anti-democratic legislation must continue to be on guard for other attempts to enact aspects of the jobs-killing legislation.

The Hill reports that the newly elected head of the SEIU labor union, Mary Kay Henry, has reaffirmed that the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act remains the “main plank of [the SEIU’s] legislative platform,” but she recognizes that it’s”unlikely this year as Democrats no longer have the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster.” This comes just a few days after the AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka doubled-down on his labor union’s commitment to see the bill passed in some form by seeking ways to “tack” it on to other, more politically viable pieces of legislation.

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), who has been leading the effort in the Senate to pass the legislation, paints a different picture. The AFL-CIO’s path forward appears the most realistic approach, the Senator indicates, but he still bluntly asserts that he has “no higher priority” other than to pass the pending bill.

The Washington Post reports, “Fast action to limit salt in processed foods pushed by Sen. Harkin, Rep. DeLauro“:

Two members of Congress urged the Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday to move quickly to limit the amount of salt in processed foods, calling the matter a “public health crisis” that demanded a swift response from government.

“I understand they want to do it in a phased kind of a deal, but I don’t want it to be too long,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “This is crying out for change that’s long overdue.”

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) agreed, saying in a conference call with Harkin and reporters: “I don’t want this to take 10 years. . . . This is a public health crisis.”

Millions of American of Americans work in the food industry, and it’s disheartening to see members of Congress immediately jump on a regulatory scheme that could have a huge impact on those jobs.

And just because you call it a crisis, doesn’t make it one.

Frankly, we’re surprised the members of Congress didn’t vow tough legislation to crack down on those nefarious salt merchants. Maybe one of the lawmakers who want to control more of Americans’ lives will introduce the bill, the Consumption Protection Salt Intake Act. We know how well the last CPSIA worked out.

Earlier: “From the Latin: We’re Going to Regulate Every Aspect of Life”

UPDATE (3:40 p.m.): Ramesh Ponnuru comments at WashingtonPost.com, Right Matters:

This strikes me as outrageous. Leave aside the irresponsibility of demanding immediate action when the FDA has not yet solved the many practical problems its ambitions require it to solve. The deeper problem is one of principle. There may be things that government can reasonably do to reduce the number of people who suffer from hypertension. Trying to force changes to every American’s diet isn’t one of them. Congress should change the law to block the FDA.

From The Hill, “Harkin: Public option backers eyeing second reconciliation bill“:

Public option supporters could offer a second reconciliation bill to establish the program, a top Democrat said Wednesday.

Supporters of creating a government-run public option health insurance program are considering moving the proposal after healthcare reform is finished via another budget reconciliation bill that would require just a simple majority to pass, said Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

Yikes. Next you know, they’ll try to turn the health care bill into a vehicle for nationalizing the student loan program.

(Hat tip: Ivan Osorio)

The National Association of Manufacturers joined other employer groups on Tuesday to send a letter to President Obama urging him not to seat Craig Becker to the powerful National Labor Relations Board through a recess appointment.

The letter signed by 20 groups explains that our opposition is based on Mr. Becker’s radical views that, if put into effect on the NLRB, would drastically change our labor law system.

Our opposition to Mr. Becker is based in large part on his legal writings, which he has not disavowed, which indicate that despite his verbal assurances to the contrary he could not be impartial or objective in adjudicating NLRB cases. For example, among his many controversial and confrontational views, Mr. Becker has written that employers should have no role in union representation elections, thus calling into question whether they should be permitted to insist on secret ballot elections to determine union representation or whether they could be compelled to accept union authorization cards (“card check”). Furthermore, his writings clearly indicate that he would use his position on the NLRB to institute far-reaching changes in the law that would not merely interpret existing law, but would bypass the role of Congress in setting national labor policy.

Meanwhile, when Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) was asked about the status of Becker’s nomination and the possibility of a recess appointment, he said, “It’s going to happen.” Sen. Harkin chairs the Senate HELP Committee, which – after much pressure – held a confirmation hearing on Becker in February.

The Senator is an optimistic man. In the past, he’s expressed ambitious aspirations for organized labor’s highest legislative priority, the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act, which have thankfully failed to become reality.

Regardless of Sen. Harkin’s assertion and Labor Secretary Solis’ recent indication that Mr. Becker will likely be recess appointed, we hope that the President will recognize both the Senate’s bipartisan opposition to moving forward with his nomination and the legitimate, strongly held concerns that employers have with Mr. Becker’s views on labor law.