Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Make the NLRB less great again
washingtonexaminer.com ^ | 7/3/17 | washington examiner

Posted on 07/03/2017 9:04:21 AM PDT by ColdOne

"Stop the presses! President Trump has nominated a second new commissioner to the National Labor Relations Board!"

Okay, yes, we jest. In reality, most Americans have probably never heard of the panel. They haven't heard of William Emanuel or Marvin Kaplan — Trump's appointees to the panel. They aren't aware that this will give the panel its first Republican majority since 2009, and they probably haven't even heard the acronym NLRB, let alone have the foggiest idea what it stands for.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: nlrb

1 posted on 07/03/2017 9:04:21 AM PDT by ColdOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
https://www.littler.com/people/william-j-emanuel
2 posted on 07/03/2017 9:11:42 AM PDT by ex91B10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
http://www.managementmemo.com/2017/06/22/white-house-nominates-marvin-kaplan-for-one-of-two-vacancies-on-the-national-labor-relations-board/
3 posted on 07/03/2017 9:14:41 AM PDT by ex91B10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

The NLRB has been a recruiting arm for the unions. The destroy businesses, draw out cases so they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and for many companies their only choice is to go union or go bankrupt. I’ve had dealings with those people.


4 posted on 07/03/2017 9:14:44 AM PDT by McGavin999 ("The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood."Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

The Department of Labor has been effectively controlled by big labor for many years. As a member of a management team for a basic metal industrial plant in the seventies I had occasion to meet with those people. In doing my research before the meeting, I learned everyone of the DOL bureaucrats in the meetings had once worked for one of the major labor unions. I suspect it is the same today.


5 posted on 07/03/2017 9:16:01 AM PDT by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-hereQaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

The NLRB tilts strongly towards unions.

I can support union efforts for worker safety, or as a response to abuse of some sort. However I think their main role has been to raise the wages of union workers. The downside is reduced employment. So while they are good for the union workers who keep their jobs, they are bad for workers in general.


6 posted on 07/03/2017 9:26:33 AM PDT by ChessExpert (NAFTA - Not A Free Trade Agreement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert; ColdOne; elpadre
Former (40 years ago) labor thug here.

The NLRB tilts strongly towards unions.

Yes, and even though the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 was largely a conservative repeal of the near-communist Wagner Act made during FDR's tenure, that has been the case since the 1950's.

However I think their main role has been to raise the wages of union workers.

There is nothing wrong with that. You have a First Amendment right to make associations with anyone you please, and that includes a right to bargain for higher wages.

So while they are good for the union workers who keep their jobs, they are bad for workers in general.

Again, there is nothing wrong with that. Unions have no responsibility to "workers in general," only to the people they represent. If they did that -- they don't -- it would be part of their charters.

The real problem with unions isn't what you object to. The major problem with unions are twofold: 1) They are highly radicalized. Most rank-and-file trade workers have no clue how thoroughly communist/socialist infiltrated the leadership of their unions is. In the government and service unions like AFSCME and SEIU the situation is much worse: they do know how far left their leadership is, and they approve of it. 2) The absolute corruption at the top of almost every labor union. This goes hand-in-hand with their radicalized leadership, who, like left wingers everywhere, believe there should be one set of rules for themselves, and a different set of rules for their members and the rest of society.

The real problem with Big Labor is that they don't care about the people they're supposed to represent. They see them as nothing more than a vehicle to the leftist policy changes they want. That's all.

7 posted on 07/03/2017 9:59:33 AM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Thanks for the excellent reply.

Comment:
However I think their main role has been to raise the wages of union workers.
Reply:
There is nothing wrong with that. You have a First Amendment right to make associations with anyone you please, and that includes a right to bargain for higher wages.
Response:
I agree there is freedom of association. But when “bargaining” is done with baseball bats, that is another matter.

What about more peaceful threats, like a collective walk-out? We soon get into the topic of scabs and the threat of violence. If (often coerced) workers leave en masse, can they be replaced en masse? Well why not? Back to violence (or the NLRB). I grant you these are hypothetical, even if historically real, scenarios. Still, violence and the realistic threat of violence has been a large part of unionism (bargaining) in my opinion.

Comment:
So while they are good for the union workers who keep their jobs, they are bad for workers in general.
Reply:
Again, there is nothing wrong with that.
Response:
Agreed. Yet the public has been told that unions are responsible for our high wages. That is not true.

Your comment:
The real problem with Big Labor is that they don’t care about the people they’re supposed to represent. They see them as nothing more than a vehicle to the leftist policy changes they want.
My reply:
Agreed


8 posted on 07/03/2017 10:24:22 AM PDT by ChessExpert (NAFTA - Not A Free Trade Agreement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Huge Win!!!


9 posted on 07/03/2017 10:35:56 AM PDT by Revolutionary ("Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolutionary

Yes it is huge. Didn’t the courts call obamas recess appointment illegal for that board?


10 posted on 07/03/2017 10:42:21 AM PDT by ColdOne ((I miss my poochie... Tasha 2000~3/14/11~ Best Election Ever! “Laughing my #Ossoff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert
Still, violence and the realistic threat of violence has been a large part of unionism (bargaining) in my opinion.

I would agree, except to point out that as a former shop steward, business agent, and union organizer, I have seen intimidation and threats from employers just as often as from labor unions -- even though those measures are every bit as illegal coming from management as they are from labor.

With regards to physical violence, there is no question that (certain) unions are more guilty of that, and the reputation for it, if not the actual use, is something that all unions "benefit" from.

I never sanctioned it on the organizing side, but as shop steward I was asked to "put a pipe across the back of [some guy's] legs." My response was "I'm not doing that, and you are not asking any of my guys to do that, or I'll be telling the police who to charge for solicitation." Thankfully, I never had to.

11 posted on 07/03/2017 10:43:03 AM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

I have no problem with higher wages - within reason.

When we went into negotiations with the union we had a set amount we could give without affecting the bottom line. That included wages and other conditions. Everything has a cost.

It seemed to me that unions were really trying to gradually take control of the company as they demanded inclusion of other than wage earners in the unit. That and many other demands. I am an octogenarian now and just don’t remember much of what was experienced. I do remember the union hierarchy in Pittsburg convinced my corporate brass to send me to a weeklong workshop on interpersonal relationships because they felt I was too hard nosed in enforcing the agreed upon contract.


12 posted on 07/03/2017 1:45:59 PM PDT by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said the goal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-hereQaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: elpadre
I have no problem with higher wages - within reason.

"Within reason" is a meaningless phrase. It's a matter of free markets. The value of labor is determined neither by its effort (Marxist theory) nor by what an employer or employee thinks is "reasonable" (results of negotiation.) When there is an imbalance between the market value of labor and the negotiated value, the result will equilibrate to the market, either lowering or raising wages or displacing workers.

When we went into negotiations with the union we had a set amount we could give without affecting the bottom line. That included wages and other conditions. Everything has a cost.

Sure.

However, the employees or the proxies negotiating on their behalf are not interested in management's bottom line. They have their own idea of what that is. If that is what you mean by "reasonable," see my previous paragraph. Indirectly, the compensation of people outside the bargaining unit are also part of this process, whether they realize it or not.

It seemed to me that unions were really trying to gradually take control of the company as they demanded inclusion of other than wage earners in the unit.

Typically the union wants people in or out of the bargaining unit in order to strengthen their bargaining position. They want people sympathetic to management out and people sympathetic to the union in. Line supervisors often fall into this grey area.

So do people of dubious qualification to the unit. The union would prefer to get them "automatically" into the bargaining unit, as opposed to having another certification election to get them in, which might also endanger the status of people already in the unit if their are enough "outsiders" to be brought in.

the union hierarchy in Pittsburg[h?] convinced my corporate brass to send me to a weeklong workshop on interpersonal relationships because they felt I was too hard nosed in enforcing the agreed upon contract.

I doubt they convinced executive management of much of anything. More likely, the Bigs decided they could pretend they were more "sympathetic" that way. People in the middle always get stuck with concessions; neither the "upper" union people nor executive management ever pays any kind of price; stewards, employees, and middle managers always have to take the all friction.

13 posted on 07/03/2017 2:56:31 PM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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