In a May 17 editorial, The Washington Examiner suggested that the National Labor Relations Board (NLBR) is behaving in violation of Supreme Court precedent in pursuing a case against Boeing for its plans to build a production line in South Carolina, allegedly in response to union workers striking at their current plant in Washington state. In fact, experts have said that the NLRB is pursuing a "classic case" of labor law violations; the NLRB complaint alleges Boeing chose South Carolina because unionized workers elsewhere engaged in lawful strikes, which is against federal law. One expert told Media Matters there is "nothing controversial" about NLRB's complaint.
From the editorial:
The [NLRB] sued Boeing for opening a factory in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. Boeing's main plant is in Washington, a state where employees have no choice but to join unions. It's also where the International Association of Machinists has struck Boeing five times in 30 years, most recently in 2008. That strike cost Boeing $2 billion and prompted longtime customers like Virgin Airways chief Richard Branson to make plans to take his business elsewhere. With the new plant, 1,000 jobs were created in South Carolina, but no union jobs in Washington were lost.
The NLRB calls that decision "an unfair labor practice" that violates the National Labor Relations Act. The Supreme Court, however, said in its 1981 First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB decision that the NLRA "limited the mandate or duty to bargain" of unionized firms "to matters of 'wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.' " The court also held that Congress had no expectation that the elected union representative at First National would become "an equal partner in the running of the business enterprise." Firms must be able "to reach decisions without fear of later evaluations labeling its conduct an unfair labor practice," the court concluded.
Obama's NLRB doesn't give a hoot what the Supreme Court ruled. Not only is the NLRB standing firm in its Boeing suit, but the leaked memo, which was obtained by the Heritage Foundation's Hans von Spakovsky and James Sherk, also shows that the board seeks to elevate union officials to equal partners with executives in corporate boardrooms of all unionized firms.
Soviet Communist Party theoretician Leon Trotsky wrote this in 1931: "The workers need control not for platonic purposes, but in order to exert practical influence upon the production and commercial operations of the employers. ... In a developed form, workers' control thus implies a sort of economic dual power in the factory." Were Trotsky still around, he would no doubt cheer Obama's NLRB. [Washington Examiner, 5/17/11]