NLRB Shills for Card Check

American Thinker ^ | January 17, 2011 | Geoffrey Burr

[jazusamo]

Amidst a week of major events dominating the news landscape, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) dropped a bomb last Friday afternoon.  Apparently, the NLRB felt the need to flex some muscle and has threatened to sue four states over laws passed by voter referendum in November.  The laws in question would guarantee workers the right to a secret ballot when deciding whether or not to join a union.

NLRB's actions are a naked attempt to protect Big Labor's favorite organizing tool -- card check --  which also is a key component of the widely unpopular and job-killing Employee Free Choice Act.  Under a card check scheme, rather than voting by secret ballot, workers are forced to "choose" whether or not to join the union by signing or not signing a card in front of a union organizer and co-workers that support the union.  Courts have said federal law favors secret ballot elections, but permits card check where an employer and union agree to one.

The NLRB claims the state laws are "preempted," because they infringe on the federal government's jurisdiction over private sector labor relations.  The Board's statement said:

The National Labor Relations Board today advised the Attorneys General of Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah that recently-approved state constitutional amendments governing the method by which employees choose union representation conflict with federal labor law and therefore are preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Translation: Sorry, states and voters who tried protecting a fundamental democratic right, you lose.  And furthermore:

The states were also advised that the Board has authorized the Acting General Counsel to file lawsuits in federal court, if necessary, to enjoin them from enforcing the laws.

Next translation: Don't try to defy us or you may get hauled in front of a judge. 

The NLRB's actions are surprising, given it has been less than territorial in recent history.  There have been half a dozen or so state and local laws enacted in the last decade that have infringed on federal jurisdiction, the vast majority of which were aimed at promoting union organizing at the expense of free speech.  The NLRB, which is tasked with both protecting the right to organize and the right refrain from doing so, could have sued or threatened suit against any one of these laws -- but instead it sat on its hands. 

So why would the NLRB expend the time and resources here, where action means opposing secret ballots for workers?  The truth is this is just the latest example of the NLRB advocating for union bosses at the expense of workers, businesses and the American public.   If the government is going to pursue a policy of challenging laws based on federal preemption, it should do so consistently, not just when it promotes Big Labor's agenda.  

[fhayek]

Can anybody give me what the justification is for supporting card check (aside from the power grab, of course)? I mean, every other liberal scheme, at least, has a rational/moral/economic justification (lame as it may be). Do they not even bother with a rationale in this particular instance?

[jazusamo]

I’ve read that the union thug leaders try to justify it by saying companies bully the employees to not join unions therefore card check makes it more fair which is complete BS.

Of course Obama the Dems in Washington support it for a payback to unions for the hundreds of millions they receive from the unions and to buy future votes which is criminal IMO.

I can see no moral or rational reason for card check, our nation was more or less founded on the secret ballot.

[jazusamo]

Please bump the Freepathon and donate or become a monthly donor!

[rockinqsranch]

“NLRB’s actions are a naked attempt to protect Big Labor’s favorite organizing tool — card check — which also is a key component of the widely unpopular and job-killing Employee Free Choice Act.”

This is a grand example of why we have to get the damned Leftist, Socialist Democrats out, and clean up the mess they created since primarily Wilson’s time. We must adjust some laws to ensure that if the RATS ever lie their way back into the POWER they see those positions as cannot, without blatantly breaking the law change the course of our freedom ever again.

Leftist, Socialist Democrat-RATS belong in either mental institutions, or jail, NOT government.

[screaminsunshine]

They appear to be due for a large cut in their budget. Heh..heh...heh

[jazusamo]

I’m definitely with you.

For years the Dem party has progressively become a more socialistic power grabbing party. When The Won was elected the RATS that were still hiding came out of the woodwork like cockroaches when the lights are turned off.

The new House has it’s work cut out for the next two years and a huge purge will have to take place when Zer0 leaves office including his appointed thugs , czars, etc.

[jazusamo]

Amen! :-)

[fhayek]

See this is my problem. Wouldn't card check make it easier for companies to bully those that support a union. And gee, it sure would make it easier for a Union to bully those that do not support a union. That's just it, there is no logical rationale. You are right to call it bs.

I am a contractor. I have witnessed, or have intimate knowledge of scores of instances where unions have used bullying tactics. I know of no instances where employers were the bullys.

[jazusamo]

scores of instances where unions have used bullying tactics. I know of no instances where employers were the bullys.

I agree. If this card check should ever be passed it'll be a green light for union thugs to bully. The cards don't have to be signed at the work place or site and when a couple of union thugs shove a card at a person and say sign I'd bet the majority will sign.

[Mack the knife]

The truth is this is just the latest example of the NLRB advocating for union bosses at the expense of workers, businesses and the American public. If the government is going to pursue a policy of challenging laws based on federal preemption, it should do so consistently, not just when it promotes Big Labor’s agenda.

---

Wouldn’t the next appropriate action by a State be to simply pass a “Right to Work” law, thus allowing the workers to “opt out” of the union without penalty?

[jazusamo]

State be to simply pass a “Right to Work” law,

Good point and you're right, IMO.

Of course the chances of a blue state passing a Right to Work law are somewhere between slim and none and that's a shame, every state should have it.

[Some Fat Guy in L.A.]

I work in a place where hourly workers regularly wear “Union Free and Proud To Be” shirts to work. Good management makes unions not only unnecessary but downright unpopular.