LaborPains.org

While the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has always maintained the façade of being neutral, the emboldened new chair has decided to let his true colors show by publicly disclosing a very pro-union agenda. Despite heavy opposition from business groups and Republicans, Mark Peirce, NLRB chairman, will push for new rules that would make it easier to organize new members.

“I knew this was going to happen,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy, (R-SC) , a member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. “The NLRB has lost all pretense of objectivity in my judgment.”

In what seems like a complete invasion of privacy, Pearce wants to implement new rules requiring businesses to hand over lists of employee phone numbers and emails to union leaders prior to an election. Pierce also hopes to speed up the process for holding a vote to unionize after signatures are collected.

“If they’re going to go forward on that basis, I think that removes any pretense at all that they are not in the back pocket of the union movement,” said Randel Johnson, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s vice president on labor issues.

Pearce says he wants the NLRB to become “a household word” for all workers, not just those affiliated with organized labor. If he continues down his path of hyper-partisan politics and power grabs, he might just get what he’s wishing for. However, most households probably won’t be talking about the agency in a positive light.

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) legal efforts to derail The Boeing Company from opening a new production plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state, prompted 41 Republican senators to retaliate against President Obama and his pro-union NLRB. The senators wrote in a letter to Obama last Thursday that they’d “use all procedural tools available to defeat” the confirmations of two board members unless he withdrew their nominations immediately.

Specifically, the senators vowed to oppose the nominations of the board’s Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon and board member Craig Becker, a former attorney who has represented both the AFL-CIO and Service Workers International Union (SEIU), who we’ve written about before.

For a hint at just how frustrated the 41 senators are, here’s a bit more of the letter sent by them to President Obama:

The Senate has been unacceptably denied the ability to exercise its constitutional duty of advice and consent in regards to the NLRB.

In light of the NLRB’s recent actions that would have a deleterious effect on job creation and economic opportunity across the country, it is time to hold the NLRB accountable.

We urge you to withdraw both Mr. Solomon’s and Mr. Becker’s nominations to their respective positions immediately.

If not, we will vigorously oppose both nominations, vote against cloture and use all procedural tools available to defeat their confirmation in the Senate. …

Is this move against Boeing what President Obama meant when he told the AFL-CIO in August 2010 that he was going to “restore some balance” to the NLRB and make it easier for workers in the aerospace industry to unionize? It certainly seems that way.

Image courtesy of: vgm8383

You might have thought President Obama intended to be conciliatory after his fairly moderate State of the Union Address. Think again. This morning the president fired the first shot in the this year’s inevitable partisan battle over labor unions:

Craig Becker, a Democrat on the U.S. National Labor Relations Board who has been criticised by business groups for his ties to unions, was re-nominated by President Barack Obama to serve until 2014.

Becker, a lawyer who represented the AFL-CIO and Service Employees International Union, was appointed in March by Obama after the U.S. Senate failed to confirm his nomination. Republicans and some Democrats sought to block Becker after the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups objected to his academic writings proposing that unions get more power.

The appointment, made during a Senate recess, is set to expire this year and a fresh nomination was required. If confirmed, Becker would serve on the board, which handles disputes between unions and companies, until December 2014.

But a fresh nomination wasn’t required. Becker is a political hot potato whose nomination Republicans fiercely (and successfully) battled. His notoriety stems primarily from an article in the Minnesota Law Review where he essentially argued that employers should be shut out of the unionization elections completely.

In that sense, Becker is a perfect fit for Obama’s vision of the NLRB, which has been discussing limiting employers’ role over their own workers with everything from quickie elections to enforcing a back door card check. Unions believe that if they exclude employers from the unionization process, they can convince far more workers to unionize and ensure their survival. Becker on the NLRB is Obama’s way of giving them a leg up.

Welcome home, Mr. Becker.

In October 2009, UNITE HERE hotel workers in San Francisco voted to go on strike against several hoteliers. The workers organized ostensibly because they don’t feel the hotels are doing enough for them to cover health care costs.

But the hotels aren’t the only ones supposedly depriving them of benefits. UNITE HERE was caught diverting money from a union benefit fund to spend on their strikes:

After the National Labor Relations Board brought a legal case against Unite Here Local 2, which represents 12,000 hotel employees in San Francisco and San Mateo counties, the union agreed to reverse its actions and restore the monies to the proper funds with interest, hotel spokesman Pete Hillan said in a written statement.

In May, the Grand Hyatt and Hyatt Regency complained about the practice to the NLRB, and the agency subsequently intervened, Hillan said. Before the union redirected the funds, the money had been going to fund child care and elder care.

“One million dollars is a lot of money to chase business away from San Francisco,” San Francisco Grand Hyatt General Manager David Nadelman said Tuesday at the first of two dueling news conferences at the Union Square Grand Hyatt.

The employees are striking primarily over a reduction in health benefits. Organized labor has reacted with outrage when states don’t fully fund their benefit funds. Alleged attempts to “raid the Social Security and Medicare funds” have also elicited dramatic responses from unions.

There can only be one solution. In order for UNITE HERE to be consistent, it has to go on strike against itself. Any business or government willing to raid its employees’ benefits for cynical purposes must be taught a lesson. That’s their talking point, right?

Image courtesy of Marshall Astor.

As U.S. Senate candidate Jeff Merkley attempts to visit one-hundred towns before November, he’s spent a lot of time talking about democracy and his support for “ordinary working people”.

Unfortunately for ordinary working people, talk is about all the support they can expect from Merkley.

Merkley supports the Employee Free Choice Act, a misnamed and deceptive piece of legislation that takes away workers’ right to a private ballot in the workplace regarding whether they want to join a union.

The current system is fair and allows unions to collect signatures from workers to determine whether they want to unionize. Once the union has approval from 30 percent of the workers, an election is called for by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal agency created to protect workers. The workers then vote by private ballot, the same basic American right we all have when we go to vote for a candidate, say for U.S. Senate.

Under the deceptively-named Employee Free Choice Act however, the NLRB would be effectively abolished and workers would be given a contract to sign by union organizers. These contracts are collected by union organizers. Once unions have 51% of the workers’ signatures on the dotted line, they are recognized as the employees’ representation and can negotiate with small business owners over wages, benefits and other important aspects of their jobs.

How secure would you feel if an organization that benefits from you signing up also hands out and collects the contracts that say whether or not you want to join? The checks and balances of the system are taken away by the Employee Free Choice Act.

And what kind of democracy is it when your vote isn’t held private? Workers would be open to intimidation, coercion and even threats by union organizers and fellow workers in an attempt to “persuade” them to sign these cards.

Unions like to talk about increased benefits or higher wages, but they won’t tell workers that union bosses are paying themselves six-figure salaries from members’ dues, that hundreds of union officials have been convicted of racketeering in the past five years or that unions’ inflexibility has played a role in driving many companies into bankruptcy, costing those same workers their jobs.

They also don’t talk about the tens of millions of dollars they collect in dues that go to politicians like Merkley who turn around and pass legislation that makes it easier for unions to get more members and therefore increase the dues they take from ordinary working people. This vicious cycle ensures that politicians like Merkley continue to receive millions in financial support while ordinary working people struggle to put food on the table and gas in their cars and trucks.

Merkley and his supporters claim that unions create a better working environment, more job security and higher wages. The real question we should be asking is for whom: Workers or the union bosses and politicians like Jeff Merkley?

Merkley claims to stand up for ordinary working people, but his actions and his support of the Employee Free Choice Act say that he’s really looking out for himself.