Wilson: NLRB Not Helping Workers
Of all the federal agencies engaging in “bold, persistent experimentation” with our econYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
Of all the federal agencies engaging in “bold, persistent experimentation” with our econYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
6 comments
Wow. It’s hard to believe that Bill Wilson could pack so much misinformation into such a short column.
Wilson accuses the Obama NLRB (which during most of Obama’s tenure has included GOP and Bush appointees or has been hamstrung by the failure of the Senate to process appointments) as boldly experimenting with the economy. Such a claim is pure
balderdash. The NLRB’s enabling statute does not have anything to do with the economy. It is an agency which conducts free elections allowing employees to choose whether they want union representation. It also prosecutes employers and unions for conduct which interferes with that free choice. It plays no role whatsoever in economic policy.
Wilson claims that the Board hasn’t helped workers, just as Obama’s spending hasn’t helped stimulate the economy. Frankly, this assertion borders on the nutty. First, it is clear that the Bush-Obama stimulation policies prevented the Nation from another Great
Depression, so Wilson’s ‘factual’ analogy is wrong in the first place. Second, claiming that the Board’s policies haven’t helped employees is a fairly empty comment. The Board is not designed to help employees economically. The statute under which the Board operates simply allows for workers to use collective means to improve their lot as they see fit—through collective bargaining by their own representative. Whether they improve their lot or not is up to them—the NLRB doesn’t judge that—and has never judged that since the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935, 78 years ago.
As for the Boeing case, the complaint never had anything to do with Boeing’s creation of jobs in a right to work state. It was aimed at stealing jobs from an existing bargaining unit in Washington State and moving them to South Carolina without properly bargaining with the union representing the Washington workers. It was a classic runaway shop complaint—one which was authorized by the Supreme Court in a case from 1965 and a type of case the Board has decided since the 1930s. From a legal standpoint there was
nothing unusual. Boeing and South Carolina caterwauled about it but eventually settled the case on terms originally proposed by the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel. The Board itself never even saw the case.
As for “union bosses” (in democratic unions is there such a thing?) being required to make reports so union corruption can be tracked, the NLRB, as an independent agency, has no authority in that field. That is done by the Department of Labor. So, contrary to Wilson’s assertion, the NLRB changed nothing because it was not empowered to do so in the first place. How that morphs into a full-fledged war against free enterprise as Wilson claims is beyond understanding. Wilson just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
As for the case which changed the long-standing “rule” that union dues which were compulsory during the term of the CBA but not compelled during a hiatus between contracts, that change came about due to court disapproval of the rule as being inconsistent with the bar against unilateral changes during such hiatuses. In effect, it was done because the courts urged the Board to do away with the dues exception to the general rule. So the change did not originate with the Board.
As for the Kent Hospital case, Wilson has entirely misread it. The Board did not, as Wilson
claims, hold that employees could no longer opt out of paying for the union’s
political activity. It did say, as it has since Beck, that lobbying for workplace protection issues is part of a union’s core representation duty, so employee dues can be used for such a purpose. But the Kent ruling is not a change; it simply applied existing law. In addition, in Kent, the Board applied existing law concerning the accounting aspect of how a union determines the percentage of dues which can be deducted because that percentage doesn’t go to representational expenses. There simply was no change. In fact, the Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon—the so-called pro-union prosecutor—chose to prosecute the union in order to expand union accounting requirements for better transparency and improved employee understanding, but Solomon lost as the Board declined the opportunity and let the law stand as it was. (Mr. Solomon in fact is not pro-union; he is a long-time labor relations professional whose only “client” has been the National Labor Relations Act.)
Wilson accuses the Board and Obama of making astounding changes and engaging in astounding unconstitutional behavior—but Wilson’s willful ignorance is far more astounding. Nearly everything he says in this piece is untrue. If he had presented it as a college-level labor law paper, his professor would give him a failing grade. No one should believe a word he said in this article. It’s just incompetent.
Then, almost irrationally, Wilson goes after federal employees who have volunteered to serve as union representatives. These people are not paid union employees but must fit in their union work while doing their regular federal jobs. Usually the time spent on union business is negotiated with their agency.
Wilson claims that two NLRB staff members work “exclusively” for the unions. But his statement is incorrect. He’s relying on material gleaned from a FOIA request, one which has, as Media Matters observes, been cherry picked to support an ideological claim. The media Matters report is here: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/01/how-the-conservative-media-cherry-picked-false/192853 And, it turns out, the two NLRB
staffers only charge off about 1/3 of their time to union business—meaning they
do not work exclusively for the union on their federal salary. Moreover, the overall amount of union work for the agencies surveyed turns out to be only about 0.19% of their salaried time—a miniscule amount.
The truth is, Wilson doesn’t know what he’s talking about and his op-ed article is terribly misleading.
Jim3K — who’s been a professional in the field for almost 45 years
Wow. It’s hard to believe that Bill Wilson could pack so much misinformation into such a short column.
Wilson accuses the Obama NLRB (which during most of Obama’s tenure has included GOP and Bush appointees or has been hamstrung by the failure of the Senate to process appointments) as boldly experimenting with the economy. Such a claim is pure
balderdash. The NLRB’s enabling statute does not have anything to do with the economy. It is an agency which conducts free elections allowing employees to choose whether they want union representation. It also prosecutes employers and unions for conduct which interferes with that free choice. It plays no role whatsoever in economic policy.
Wilson claims that the Board hasn’t helped workers, just as Obama’s spending hasn’t helped stimulate the economy. Frankly, this assertion borders on the nutty. First, it is clear that the Bush-Obama stimulation policies prevented the Nation from another Great
Depression, so Wilson’s ‘factual’ analogy is wrong in the first place. Second, claiming that the Board’s policies haven’t helped employees is a fairly empty comment. The Board is not designed to help employees economically. The statute under which the Board operates simply allows for workers to use collective means to improve their lot as they see fit—through collective bargaining by their own representative. Whether they improve their lot or not is up to them—the NLRB doesn’t judge that—and has never judged that since the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935, 78 years ago.
As for the Boeing case, the complaint never had anything to do with Boeing’s creation of jobs in a right to work state. It was aimed at stealing jobs from an existing bargaining unit in Washington State and moving them to South Carolina without properly bargaining with the union representing the Washington workers. It was a classic runaway shop complaint—one which was authorized by the Supreme Court in a case from 1965 and a type of case the Board has decided since the 1930s. From a legal standpoint there was
nothing unusual. Boeing and South Carolina caterwauled about it but eventually settled the case on terms originally proposed by the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel. The Board itself never even saw the case.
As for “union bosses” (in democratic unions is there such a thing?) being required to make reports so union corruption can be tracked, the NLRB, as an independent agency, has no authority in that field. That is done by the Department of Labor. So, contrary to Wilson’s assertion, the NLRB changed nothing because it was not empowered to do so in the first place. How that morphs into a full-fledged war against free enterprise as Wilson claims is beyond understanding. Wilson just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
As for the case which changed the long-standing “rule” that union dues which were compulsory during the term of the CBA but not compelled during a hiatus between contracts, that change came about due to court disapproval of the rule as being inconsistent with the bar against unilateral changes during such hiatuses. In effect, it was done because the courts urged the Board to do away with the dues exception to the general rule. So the change did not originate with the Board.
As for the Kent Hospital case, Wilson has entirely misread it. The Board did not, as Wilson
claims, hold that employees could no longer opt out of paying for the union’s
political activity. It did say, as it has since Beck, that lobbying for workplace protection issues is part of a union’s core representation duty, so employee dues can be used for such a purpose. But the Kent ruling is not a change; it simply applied existing law. In addition, in Kent, the Board applied existing law concerning the accounting aspect of how a union determines the percentage of dues which can be deducted because that percentage doesn’t go to representational expenses. There simply was no change. In fact, the Acting General Counsel, Lafe Solomon—the so-called pro-union prosecutor—chose to prosecute the union in order to expand union accounting requirements for better transparency and improved employee understanding, but Solomon lost as the Board declined the opportunity and let the law stand as it was. (Mr. Solomon in fact is not pro-union; he is a long-time labor relations professional whose only “client” has been the National Labor Relations Act.)
Wilson accuses the Board and Obama of making astounding changes and engaging in astounding unconstitutional behavior—but Wilson’s willful ignorance is far more astounding. Nearly everything he says in this piece is untrue. If he had presented it as a college-level labor law paper, his professor would give him a failing grade. No one should believe a word he said in this article. It’s just incompetent.
Then, almost irrationally, Wilson goes after federal employees who have volunteered to serve as union representatives. These people are not paid union employees but must fit in their union work while doing their regular federal jobs. Usually the time spent on union business is negotiated with their agency.
Wilson claims that two NLRB staff members work “exclusively” for the unions. But his statement is incorrect. He’s relying on material gleaned from a FOIA request, one which has, as Media Matters observes, been cherry picked to support an ideological claim. The media Matters report is here: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/01/how-the-conservative-media-cherry-picked-false/192853 And, it turns out, the two NLRB
staffers only charge off about 1/3 of their time to union business—meaning they
do not work exclusively for the union on their federal salary. Moreover, the overall amount of union work for the agencies surveyed turns out to be only about 0.19% of their salaried time—a miniscule amount.
The truth is, Wilson doesn’t know what he’s talking about and his op-ed article is terribly misleading.
Jim3K — who’s been a professional in the field for almost 45 years
Wow! don’t think I am going to waste my time reading something by Bill Wilson again.
Wow! don’t think I am going to waste my time reading something by Bill Wilson again.
Amerika’s labor unions need the Federal Government to support them more then ever,All the $$$$ they give the President and Democratic Party must be repaid one or another.
Amerika’s labor unions need the Federal Government to support them more then ever,All the $$$$ they give the President and Democratic Party must be repaid one or another.