Posted on 09/10/2001 9:53:45 AM PDT by xsysmgr
Clinton’s labor board is still wreaking havoc.By John Tate, vice president, National Right to Work Committee.
September 10, 2001 8:30 a.m.During last year's presidential campaign, George W. Bush repeatedly told the American people that "help is on the way." Unfortunately, for millions of Americans laboring under federally imposed forced unionism, help has yet to arrive.That's because, after almost eight months, the White House hasn't even taken the obvious step of replacing the Clinton-era National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) with a board that is interested in protecting workers against union tyranny.
This reality was highlighted just last week by a decision in which Bush's NLRB, consisting of three Clinton-appointed holdovers, ruled to force objecting employees to wear union propaganda, such as logos and patches, as a condition of employment.
The sweeping ruling came in a case brought by BellSouth Communications technicians Gary Lee and Jim Auburn of Charlotte, North Carolina, against the Communications Workers of America (CWA).
In a decision filled with tortured legal reasoning issued a few weeks ago, the NLRB ruled that BellSouth's uniform policy requiring the CWA union patch was a "special circumstance," which trumped the right of workers to refrain from supporting the union. National Right to Work Foundation attorneys have already appealed the NLRB's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals but this outrage should not have occurred under Bush's watch in the first place.
Of course, this is not the first time that the Democrat-run NLRB has trampled employee rights in the recent past. Earlier this year, the San Francisco-based United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the NLRB's anti-freedom mandate in Mulder v. UFCW, a ruling that thumbed its nose at U.S. Supreme Court precedent by requiring employees to pay for union organizing drives or lose their jobs. (Had foundation attorneys not won on appeal, the NLRB's ruling in Mulder would have forced the 7.8 million American employees who work in compulsory union shops to pay for union organizing expenses out of their mandatory union fees.)
Federal courts have repeatedly scolded the NLRB for its refusal to adhere to legal precedents. In one case, the Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeals even went as far as noting that the board has a "decidedly pro-union bent."
The NLRB's recalcitrant attitude and shameful record should be enough motivation for President Bush to immediately exercise his responsibility to clean up the board.
Right now, he can appoint four new members to the five-member board. (And no nomination package should include "Republican" Peter Hurtgen, who the President just named to a recess appointment after his official term expired. Hurtgen has consistently sided with Big Labor's allies on the NLRB to undermine enforcement of employee rights to refrain from supporting unions.)
Failure by the president to act immediately will undoubtedly lead to more outrageous decisions designed to expand the power of union officials at the expense of employee rights.
But if principle alone is not enough to motivate the president to act, perhaps he should also consider political self-preservation.
The NLRB is responsible for enforcing the foundation-won U.S. Supreme Court CWA v. Beck decision, establishing that employees cannot be compelled to pay dues spent for non-bargaining activities such as lobbying and electioneering.
Throughout its existence, the still-intact Clinton NLRB has stymied enforcement of Beck clearing the path for Big Labor to spend nearly $800 million to try to defeat Bush and his fellow Republicans at the polls last fall. Union officials are now plowing those forced union dues into a multi-million dollar grassroots campaign aimed at stifling the president's reform agenda.
AFL-CIO political operatives will also mobilize their expansive network of work site coordinators to distribute their political propaganda. AFL-CIO officials have already committed 20 full-time staff members to the mobilization and are "requesting" that their 64 affiliated unions each commit one full-time operative. An AFL-CIO strategist pointed out that, in a year, the number of operatives will be "many times larger."
But that is just the beginning. Big Labor will use forced union dues to orchestrate the largest political mobilization in our nation's history with one goal in mind — defeat congressional Republicans in the 2002 election and move to defeat President Bush in 2004.
Of course, ending forced unionism in federal laws is the best way of ensuring that union officials can't seize workers' forced union dues for politics with impunity, but cleaning up the NLRB would be a good first step. Independent workers cannot afford to have a president who seems asleep at the switch while union officials rob them of their freedom.
If I want to become truly depressed, I just have to ponder Hillary as President.
It's winning him nothing to act like it didn't happen and that it's of no consequence.
I know the press will never like him, and they will never let him have an advantage, but he IS the Presidetnt. He can go over their heads as Ronal Reagan did.
I think it's probably too late to start cleaning up the mess, the time to have begun was on day one, not eight months later.
BTW, I also believe if there is corruption in the Republican party, expose it too!
Everybody knows the term "Right to Work" is a euphemism for "Right to parasite off the Unions and not pay dues." I have never heard a scab demand to receive less than union wages. I have never heard a scab demand others quit the union so that management could lower wages.
One of the reasons that the NLRB might be ruling in favor of unions is because they are tired of seeing American workers eek out small wage increases while the CEO's suck down megamillion dollar paychecks and stock options. Then when the company goes south because of management looting it, the workers get pinkslips and the CEO's get a multi-million dollar golded parachute.
I know this is an over-simplification but it is time that American workers start getting a better deal and if the NLRB can help then they should.
The fallacies of this statement are: the "scabs" don't "draw" wages, they earn them (a concept which is, admittedly, a little hard for unionists to wrap their mind around); and that the pay rate is what the employer is willing to pay for the work. (If the unions get too greedy, the employer can always go to the definition 3 or 4 scab. Indeed, I spent several summers gainfully employed as a projectionist at a theater in Washington, DC, where I routinely crossed an union picket line on my way to work at just such an employer. Was I working at less than a union-wage? No. I was inside in the air-conditioned theater making money, while the union guys were outside in the heat and humidity, walking up and down the sidewalk with their stupid signs, earning $0. So I was making much better than union-wage.)Oh please with thousands of people losing their jobs every week are we suppose to get upset because a bunch of scabs drawing good union pay rates have to wear a patch[?]One, "...thousands of people losing their jobs every week" has nothing whatsoever to do with the required wearing of patches.Two, in "...a bunch of scabs drawing good union pay rates..." the term "scab" is used in the sense of "(1) : a worker who refuses to join a labor union" instead of the more common usages of:
"(2) : a union member who refuses to strike or returns to work before a strike has ended (3) : a worker who accepts employment or replaces a union worker during a strike (4) : one who works for less than union wages or on nonunion terms." [definitions from Merriam-Webster OnLine]
Then you go on to say:
Everybody knows the term "Right to Work" is a euphemism for "Right to parasite off the Unions and not pay dues."What "everybody knows" is that the only people who can "parasite off the Unions" are the union bosses. The unions are, themselves, parasites of their memberships or, at best, symbionts.
This is followed by: "I have never heard a scab demand to receive less than union wages." which is, of course, utter idiocy. Nobody is going to demand lower wages. The question is: Will they accept them?
Then you finish with the statement:
One of the reasons that the NLRB might be ruling in favor of unions is because they are tired of seeing American workers eek[sic] out small wage increases while the CEO's suck down megamillion dollar paychecks and stock options. Then when the company goes south because of management looting it, the workers get pinkslips and the CEO's get a multi-million dollar golded parachute.The NLRB does not exist to remedy the "evils" of capitalism. It was instituted to mediate disputes between management and labor in an equitable manner, without the violence which once prevailed. The elimination of the "American workers eek[ing][sic] out small wage increases while the CEO's suck down megamillion dollar paychecks and stock options." is not part of their job.
N.B.In the interest of fairness (as they say on TV) I will state that I have been a "scab"; I have been denied work in my original field (theater) because the unions would not let me work; and I have been a security guard of management and facilities which were under attack by union goons. I have been assaulted by them simply (yelled at, threatened, car rocked) and I have been attacked with clubs and shot at. I have no respect for the unions whatsoever. They exist solely to protect their inadequately performing membership against competition from those of us who can do a better job.
I should have said "They exist solely to protect their inadequately performing membership against competition from those of us who can do the job better."
In fact I defy anyone in any state that has a "Right to Work" law that was not designed for the sole purpose of screwing the workers. Go ahead find one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.