Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama admin bullies states over card check rules
Washington Examiner ^ | 1/16/11 | David Freddoso

Posted on 01/17/2011 5:25:06 AM PST by markomalley

This is pretty bad, even by Obama administration standards. Such blatant help for union political allies certainly makes the administration's intentions clear, and tells us who really owns this White House. From a political perspective, Republicans in these states should welcome the development:

The National Labor Relations Board on Friday threatened to sue Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah over constitutional amendments guaranteeing workers the right to a secret ballot in union elections.

The agency's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said the amendments conflict with federal law, which gives employers the option of recognizing a union if a majority of workers sign cards that support unionizing.

The amendments, approved Nov. 2, have taken effect in South Dakota and Utah, and will do so soon in Arizona and South Carolina.

Business and anti-union groups sought the amendments, arguing that such secrecy is necessary to protect workers against union intimidation. They are concerned that Congress might enact legislation requiring employers to allow the "card check" process for forming unions instead of secret ballot elections.

In letters to the attorney general of each state, Solomon says the amendments are pre-empted by the supremacy clause of the Constitution because they conflict with employee rights laid out in the National Labor Relations Act. That clause says that when state and federal laws are at odds, federal law prevails.

Solomon is asking the attorneys general in South Dakota and Utah for official statements agreeing that their amendments are unconstitutional "to conserve state and federal resources."



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; US: Arizona; US: South Carolina; US: South Dakota; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: afscme; arizona; public; seiu; southcarolina; southdakota; tenthamendment; unions; utah

1 posted on 01/17/2011 5:25:08 AM PST by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Here in Arizona we are a “right to work” state and so unions aren’t the big tough machine like they are in states such as IL, NJ,etc.


2 posted on 01/17/2011 5:33:37 AM PST by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

....A given....it’s the Chicago way..... =.=


3 posted on 01/17/2011 5:34:40 AM PST by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
I tell you folks,the Democrats and Obama are no different than Hitler. The Feds and the Unions know they can intimidate people into installing unions if they can watch the vote or know for sure the way they vote. Anyone knowing the least bit about unions know they have no compunction to hurting people or their families for that matter. This is dangerous and the way Hitler came into power.
4 posted on 01/17/2011 5:36:18 AM PST by RocketRoland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The American Citizens to the Federal Government and the Unions. Kiss Our Ass..........


5 posted on 01/17/2011 5:36:40 AM PST by SECURE AMERICA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
The National Labor Relations Board on Friday threatened to sue Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah over constitutional amendments guaranteeing workers the right to a secret ballot in union elections.

The agency's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said the amendments conflict with federal law, which gives employers the option of recognizing a union if a majority of workers sign cards that support unionizing.

I don't see how there is a conflict. A majority of workers can still sign cards supporting unionization irrespective of the State's requirement of a secret ballot. Shirley the NLRB isn't this stupid???

Solomon is asking the attorneys general ... for official statements agreeing that their amendments are unconstitutional

To quote Johnny Mc... "you cannot be serious!"

6 posted on 01/17/2011 5:41:00 AM PST by Principled (Get the capital back! NRST!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Obama LOGIC:

If it is good for Kenya, it is good for the stupid Americans.


7 posted on 01/17/2011 5:43:43 AM PST by Diogenesis (Si vis pacem, para bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
card check in detroit
8 posted on 01/17/2011 5:45:37 AM PST by FrankR (The Evil Are Powerless If The Good Are Unafraid! - R. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Was with someone who was ordering business cards yesterday and heard of the union “bug” for the first time. Thought it totally bizarre.


9 posted on 01/17/2011 5:47:45 AM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RocketRoland

Here I thought we had to petition Congress to keep them from passing “card check”.

Come to find out, this admin just did an end run,
“deemed” card check to be the default,
and is demanding that states abide by that default.


10 posted on 01/17/2011 5:50:46 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: FrankR
Obama won the democrat nomination with a lot of help from Caucus votes, so he's very well acquainted with the ‘advantages’ of public ‘ballots’ that allow voters to be pressured to vote the way they are ‘supposed’ to.
12 posted on 01/17/2011 5:52:29 AM PST by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Everybody sing!

“Look for...
the union lay bull...
and make sure you’re buying...
something...
else...”


13 posted on 01/17/2011 5:52:32 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Principled
"The agency's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said the amendments conflict with federal law, which gives employers the option of recognizing a union if a majority of workers sign cards that support unionizing."

The difference being that you don't get to 'sign a card' in private.

If a couple of union goons show up at your door with baseball bats and say "Me 'n the boys think youse outghta sign this here card" They can easily get "a majority of workers to sign cards"

And employers will not have "the option" of recognizing the union

14 posted on 01/17/2011 5:53:26 AM PST by Mr. K ("...but Brondo has what plants crave")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced on June 20, 2010, that Lafe Solomon was tapped to serve as the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel. The General Counsel, as “gatekeeper” of cases at the NLRB, is responsible for the investigation and prosecution of unfair labor practice cases.

Mr. Solomon began his career with the NLRB 38 years ago as a field examiner in the Seattle office. Most recently, Mr. Solomon served as director of the NLRB’s Office of Representation Appeals.

Mr. Solomon replaces Ronald Meisburg

as outgoing General Counsel. Mr. Meisburg, whose term as General Counsel did not expire until August, resigned his position effective June 20, which prompted President Barack Obama to appoint Mr. Solomon to the post.


15 posted on 01/17/2011 5:54:02 AM PST by DontTreadOnMe2009 (So stop treading on me already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pieceofthepuzzle
That's right. The only purpose of an "open ballot" is so they will know who to harass and attack for not going along with their socialist unions.

It's Chicagoland politics...a National "protection racket".
16 posted on 01/17/2011 5:58:40 AM PST by FrankR (The Evil Are Powerless If The Good Are Unafraid! - R. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RocketRoland

unions=communist cells


17 posted on 01/17/2011 5:59:38 AM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MrB

LMAO


18 posted on 01/17/2011 6:00:13 AM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Nah, that’d be giving them too much credit. For the most part, unions are just criminal enterprises - shakedown rackets extorting “protection” money from businesses and the taxpayers, just like the old organized crime families of yesteryear did.


19 posted on 01/17/2011 6:01:40 AM PST by Oceander (The phrase "good enough for government work" is not meant as a compliment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Secret ballot elections are so EVIL, according to Obama.

I'm sure he'd like to do away with them in the public sector as well.

20 posted on 01/17/2011 6:04:09 AM PST by Lazamataz (If Illegal Aliens are Undocumented Workers, than Thieves are Undocumented Shoppers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Principled

It does seem a little odd, given that the sentence they quote isn’t about WORKERSs rights, it explicitly says company rights (”gives employers the option”).

The states are trying to stop employers from implementing a union based on signed cards, which are known to involve intimidation of workers.

Nationally, we’ve been fighting the “card check” legislation which would FORCE companies to accept a union based only on signed cards. But there are some companies that get in bed with unions against the workers, and the states are trying to prevent that to protect their workers from ending up in a union against their will.

It will be interesting to see the court fight — it is true after all that federal law trumps state law, so the outcome I guess will hinge on how a court interprets a state constitutional amendment giving workers additional rights, and a federal law which only offers employers an “optional” choice.


21 posted on 01/17/2011 6:06:52 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
The agency's acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said the amendments conflict with federal law, which gives employers the option of recognizing a union if a majority of workers sign cards that support unionizing.

Card check is now federal law? I must have been asleep.

When did this happen? Last I heard, card check was on the RATS agenda along with cap & trade, the DREAM act, etc.

22 posted on 01/17/2011 6:09:39 AM PST by upchuck (When excerpting please use the entire 300 words we are allowed. No more one or two sentence posts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
Card check is now federal law? I must have been asleep.

I think that employers already had the "right" to recognize a union based strictly on signed cards without having an election, but they could also demand an election even if 50% of the employees signed cards. The new card check law Obama wanted was to remove the option of the election and require employers to recognize the union if they got a 50% signature rate.

23 posted on 01/17/2011 6:58:50 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Washington is finally rid of the Kennedies. Free at last, thank God almighty we are free at last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Thank you.


24 posted on 01/17/2011 7:00:44 AM PST by upchuck (When excerpting please use the entire 300 words we are allowed. No more one or two sentence posts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Obama’s Daily Approval index has shot up to -11 as of today. I think he knows what he is doing and the GOP better "grow and show a pair". No bipartisanship like McAmnesty loves so much. Now that the GOP took back some control the RATS are all about civility and can't we get along and reach deals!!!! And the stupid electorate immediately forgets what the past two years have been like. My gawd Harry Reid even thinks it is time to change the Senate filibuster rules.
25 posted on 01/17/2011 7:43:52 AM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oceander

“Nah, that’d be giving them too much credit. For the most part, unions are just criminal enterprises - shakedown rackets extorting “protection” money from businesses and the taxpayers, just like the old organized crime families of yesteryear did.”

Unfortunately labor cartels do not need to operate as criminal enterprises because they have Democrat politicians in their pockets. Labor cartels are enabled by a vast network of law, executive orders, agency rulings, and court cases that effectively force others to use their services.

Philosophically, I agree with your assessment. Labor cartels are just another group trying to eliminate competition. The mob rules through violence and intimidation. In the old days, the mob have police, politicians, and judges on their payroll although this practice was never codified in law.

Labor cartels will resort to violence and intimidation when needed. The US Supreme court has given them a free pass on violence and intimidation at least to some level. In addition, police and politicians rarely sanction labor cartels for illegal strikes/job actions and other unlawful practices. For example, the NY sanitation labor cartel will not suffer any consequences for its illegal and immoral practices during the last major snowfall.


26 posted on 01/17/2011 8:57:53 AM PST by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; ColdOne; ...

Thanks markomalley. Smart move, considering gov't employee unions are going to vanish with gov't employment downsizing, and the NLRB with it.
The National Labor Relations Board on Friday threatened to sue Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah over constitutional amendments guaranteeing workers the right to a secret ballot in union elections.

27 posted on 01/17/2011 9:01:28 AM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Principled

Don’t see the conflict either. If the states fight this right, they may be able to preempt card check before it ever gets passed into law though.


28 posted on 01/17/2011 10:17:00 AM PST by Free Vulcan (The cult of Islam must be eradicated by any means necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson