From unhelpful Visigoths Hans A. von Spakovsky and James Sherk, writing at the Corner:

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) raised a lot of eyebrows by filing a complaint against Boeing for opening a new plant in a right-to-work state. But that action is just the beginning of the board’s aggressive new pro-union agenda. An internal NLRB memorandum, dated May 10, shows that the board wants to give unions much greater power over employers and their investment and management decisions.

Under current NLRB rules, companies can make major business decisions (like relocating a plant) without negotiating with their union — as long as those changes are not primarily made to reduce labor costs. For example, a business can unilaterally merge several smaller operations into one larger facility to achieve administrative efficiencies. […]

[…] the NLRB wants to force companies to provide detailed economic justifications (including underlying cost or benefit considerations) for relocation decisions to allow unions to bargain over them — or lose the right to make those decisions without bargaining over them. It is a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation for unions. Either way, businesses would have to negotiate their investment plans with union bosses.

[…]

The NRLB’s goal is not just to prevent companies from investing in right-to-work states. The board apparently also wants to force employers to make unions “an equal partner in the running of the business enterprise,” something the Supreme Court ruled in First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB is specifically not required by the NLRA. But the board wants business decisions made to benefit unions, not the shareholders, owners, and other employees of a business, or the overall economy. The Boeing charges are evidently just a first step toward that goal.

Benefiting shareholders, owners, and other employees of a business is subsidizing “the rich” and rewarding both the greedy capitalist investor class and the bourgeoisie at the expense of the working man, who in an environment that is decidedly NOT socialist / Marxist friendly (and piss on your extremist head should you suggest otherwise), should have the right to tell the person or persons providing him with a job and a paycheck just exactly how, where, and when to run the business.

Sure, it may seem, to the untrained eye, like a modern take on the laborer assuming a large measure of control over the means of production (and doing so using the force of government); but it’s really all just conventional Democratic party behavior — the kind of thing, say, JFK might do — and we needn’t carry on sounding so desperately incorrect in our very (conveniently) narrowly construed and historically fixed definitions lest the very very well-read and highly educated salon crowd on the left laugh at us.

So shut up and deal with what are essentially garden variety Democrats (who love this country just as much as you do and want to see it succeed in ways different than you, which, I shouldn’t have to note, doesn’t make them bad people, or suggest any kind of, say, transformative intent on their part), you barbarian, extremist, word rapers. And for Chrissakes, stop bitching about Obama’s appointments of left-wing radicals to governmental entities like the NLRB, or for sure we’ll lose the moderates and independents this next election cycle. Because moderates and independents all tend to vote Marxist Democrat, and the only way we can woo them is to hold very still and look like Marxists Democrats we, too, support empowerment of the working man, whose needs sometimes require taking a bit extra from those (like shareholders, or rich business owners, et al.) with the ability to provide it!

(h/t geoffb)