This is not capitalism. Nor is it liberty.
In fact, it’s the beginnings of an attempt to bring communism (which as I’ve noted before always leaves itself a ruling class intact, so it “stalls” at the liberal fascist stage) to the American mainstream. And it is absolutely, 100%, morally corrupt — a move by way of political interference to turn into a legitimate “civil right” confiscating “the means of production” from those who own them over to those who do not.
Want to run a company in the US? Well, then you’re going to have to do as the unions tell you to. Or at least tithe them.
Just like the framers intended! Although, intentionalism and clown noses, etc., so take that line with a grain of salt.
Bottom line: to fight union leadership IS to fight the Democratic Party, and today’s Democratic Party, through its progressive base, IS committed to Marxism / socialism / Leninism / etc.RealClearPolicy. And at least 4 progressive SCOTUS Justices made that quite obvious in their latest dissent against first amendment protections, which they’d grant to corporations that have editorial boards (like news services) and unions, but whom they would deny to the types of corporate entities that don’t necessarily give the Democrats an electoral advantage.
But that’s just me digressing. Here you go:
Richard Griffin, the new general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, wants to give unions a veto over a unionized employer’s decision to relocate. If Griffin has his way, and he most assuredly will, some unionized businesses will be pinned in place at the discretion of their unions.
The change Griffin is contemplating is unnecessary and inconsistent with both the law and the dynamics of our free-enterprise system. It will upset the balance mandated by the Supreme Court and should send a chill up the spine of unionized companies contemplating relocating an operation.
Griffin’s intent was disclosed in a memorandum he sent the agency’s regional directors ordering them not to act on cases presenting issues “of concern” to him — and there were many such issues — without receiving guidance from his office. Griffin’s guidance will be to order an employer to be prosecuted not on the basis of what the law is but on the law as Griffin would like it to be. This will give the board an opportunity to change the law (though the change will be prospective — the employer who is prosecuted will not be punished for violating the new rule).
Under current law, it is perfectly legal for a unionized employer to relocate some or all of its facilities and eliminate bargaining-unit work if the move is motivated by economic gain — not by a desire to retaliate against employees for their union activities and support. A desire to escape the consequences of unionization, particularly high labor costs, is considered an independent, innocent motivation, not an unlawful one. Big Labor loathes this law; Griffin intends to help unions nullify it.
Under longstanding NLRB law, a unionized employer is not required to bargain with the union over a relocation decision that is motivated by labor-cost savings if the employer determines that bargaining would be futile — that the union could not offer labor-cost savings that could change its decision. Unions can contest the employer’s decision, but they have no right to participate in it or otherwise delay it absent a court order enjoining it.
Griffin intends to change this law by making bargaining mandatory. He will argue, as did a former board member whose views he cites, that mandatory bargaining is a modest change in the law that fulfills the National Labor Relations Act’s central purpose of promoting collective bargaining. Why deprive the union of the opportunity to explore or influence an employer’s relocation decision when labor costs, an area over which the union exercises some authority, are a motivating factor?
The question begets its answer: Because the goal of collective bargaining is labor peace. The board promotes collective bargaining not in the abstract but only when the subject of the proposed discussion is “amenable to resolution through the bargaining process” (as the board and the courts have put it). Requiring bargaining with the union over a work-relocation decision that will eliminate the union when one party to the bargaining process — the party that has done the math — knows that it will be futile, invites delay and conflict, not labor peace. One would have to be living on another planet not to know that the union will be tempted to abuse the bargaining process with endless requests for information, and even take the opportunity to foment workplace discord, to convince the employer to remain in place or simply to exact a price for its move.
— All of which kind of shakedown tactics are at the heart and soul of the “community organizer” movements that are promoted by (coincidentally!) always very well-compensated “progressives.”
Hell, if things go sour for Sharpton on the racialism front, he should just have his buddy Barack declare the Senate in recess, then appoint him to the NLRB. He’d not only fit right in, but he can probably show some of these white bread thugs a thing or two about more “grassroots” level “activism.”
(h/t geoff B)