Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

4 Bumps

Another job killer, compliments of the Obama adm?

And this one is even from the Washington Post.

Here's a truth-in-advertising warning to foreign investors about this week's glossy White House sales pitch: Even as President Obama promises he's "taking steps to ensure that we remain the destination of choice for investors," his National Labor Relations Board is putting the screws to America's employers.

The most obvious example is the NLRB's ham-fisted attack on aircraft-manufacturer Boeing. Arguing that the company moved production of some of its Dreamliner jets to right-to-work South Carolina from Washington state in order to punish a union, the board ordered Boeing to close its new South Carolina plant and do the work back in Washington.

Obama insists he wants government to "partner with the private sector" to create jobs, but the NLRB's action will have the opposite effect. Indeed, it could cost 1,000 existing Boeing jobs in South Carolina, and eliminate still more jobs that would've been created once the new production line was fully up and running.

Add in the chilling effect: Any businesses looking to expand will have to worry that the heavy hand of the NLRB could come down on them should they shift work to one of the 22 right-to-work states.

Bill Gould, who served on the NLRB during the Clinton administration and agrees with much of what the NLRB is doing these days, has called the Boeing challenge "unprecedented."

But the Obama NLRB has clearly signaled that it puts the interests of Big Labor ahead of everything else, including its proper role as neutral enforcer of the nation's labor laws. Examples from just this year:

* The board is pushing to give unions the right to enter a workplace even if their intent is to harass customers and employees. The NLRB says companies shouldn't be allowed to treat union officials any differently than they do charitable organizations they let on their premises, such as the Girl Scouts or the Red Cross.

* It wants to force employers to post pro-organizing notices in about 6 million workplaces, most of which aren't unionized, under the guise of informing workers about the National Labor Relations Act. But the posters wouldn't inform these workers about aspects of the law the unions don't like -- such as the right to vote out a union or withhold union dues spent on politics.

* The board is moving ahead with lawsuits against Arizona and South Dakota over provisions in their state constitutions -- enacted through ballot initiatives last fall -- that require secret ballots for union-organizing votes. Labor unions, in an effort to expand their ranks, have been pushing hard for the opposite -- a "card check" system that would let them know who has and hasn't voted to organize. The NLRB's lawsuit conveniently fits into this effort.

* The NLRB is also pushing to let unions cherry-pick groups of workers within a company to organize, without giving those who oppose the union the opportunity to vote, changing an established definition of a "bargaining unit" that has been in place for more than 50 years. The result would be a costly, chaotic mess for businesses trying to juggle multiple unions and different sets of work rules, benefits and wage rates.

* The board is now pushing through rules that eliminate key checks and balances from the process by which a workplace can be unionized -- in the name of speeding things up, it's upending decades of precedent to make it easier for unions to force themselves on workers, who will have less information.

In all this, Obama shares full responsibility. He not only appointed the NLRB's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, he did an end-run around Congress by using a "recess appointment" to put Craig Becker, a former lawyer for the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO, on the board over bipartisan objections.

In this year's State of the Union speech, the president said that to "win the future," the country has to "make America the best place on Earth to do business." If he really wants to achieve that, he must tell the people he's appointed to run the National Labor Relations Board: Arbitrary, costly and unfair enforcement of labor laws isn't the way to win the future or attract foreign investment.

Answer Question

Asked by Carpy at 6:13 PM on Jun. 22, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (114,053 Credits)
Answers (7)
  • He has to not only pay back the unions that put him in office, he has to keep kowtowing to them so that they will buy him a 2nd term.


    Answer by DSamuels at 8:05 PM on Jun. 22, 2011

  • It's all about the agenda and it's progressing well for them...

    Answer by agentwanda at 9:08 PM on Jun. 22, 2011

  • The democrat party and the progressives are bought and owned by the Unions.

    The unions bought Obama the presidential office and it is now time to pay them back.

    The unions and George Soros  pull the strings on  the puppet Obama..


    Answer by Natesmom507 at 11:35 PM on Jun. 22, 2011

  • * The board is pushing to give unions the right to enter a workplace even if their intent is to harass customers and employees. The NLRB says companies shouldn't be allowed to treat union officials any differently than they do charitable organizations they let on their premises, such as the Girl Scouts or the Red Cross.

    My husbands company doesn't allow anyone on their grounds at all now because of this. They employees were being harassed while on duty and they were complaining to management about it.

    Unions have Obama in their pocket and I expect to see many more things like this going on. Right to work states are going to find themselves penalized for simply giving people choice. Funny how the only choice Dems seem to be in favor of is abortion. They want to control everything else. I am prochoice so not knocking prochoicers at all.

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:51 PM on Jun. 22, 2011

  • Since when does the government get to decide where a company locates? You wonder why companies move outside the US? Perfect example why, it's not worth the trouble or the extra expense.

    Answer by sopranomommy at 7:58 AM on Jun. 23, 2011

  • Unions have done this for years and have gotten away with it.

    I will be happy to see a huge dent put into the power of unions.

    Economically, you cannot forever make a trade more "special" than it really is.

    You cannot forever pay dry wallers 40 dollars an hour.

    Comes Mexicans to do it for 15.

    That's what it's worth as it takes no formal education.

    One cannot pay automakers 60K a year plus benefits and retirement ad nauseum.

    Japanese can pay employees 40K a year for the same job and employ more people.

    The Japanese, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Mexicans, the Indians exist in this world.

    Progressives should love all this multi-national, all-inclusive luuuuuuuuuuuuuuv.

    Answer by mustbeGRACE at 12:41 PM on Jun. 23, 2011

  • I have been keeping up with this because it is horrible, beyond horrible that a company may be able to be told
    where and under what circumstances they can move their company for any reason. Personally, I don't care if they are retaliating
    for whatever. It should be their decision to put that plant where ever they want.. Unfortunately, they will lose this round and probably continue losing to the tune of millions of dollars in court costs until it gets to the supreme court where they will rightfully win. To bad it's not in TX where we have loser pays laws. Maybe by the end of it all the NLRB would be broke and out of business

    Answer by itsmesteph11 at 5:34 PM on Jun. 23, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.