NLRB To Force Companies To Turn Over Employee Telephone Numbers & E-Mail Addresses To Unions?


Union-backed NLRB Chairman: "We keep our eye on the prize."

Undaunted by the constitutionally-questionable appointment of three members to Barack Obama’s National Labor Relations Board, union attorney and current NLRB chairman Mark Pearce declared in an Associated Press interview that he and his union comrades are continuing their assault on the 93% of private-sector employees who are union-free.

In fact, if Obama’s union appointees have their way, all employees who are targeted for unionization will have their employers forced to turn over their home telephone number and e-mail addresses to unions.

Ever since the 1960s, when unions have targeted companies for unionization through a NLRB-supervised election, employers have been required to turn over the list of employee names and their home addresses. The NLRB, in turn, promptly gives the list of employee names and home addresses to the involved union(s).

This list, called an Excelsior List, gives union organizers the ability to conduct intrusive home visits prior to the NLRB election. As is often said, just as when any other salesperson doing door-to-door sales knocks at the door, targeted employees can invite the union organizers into their homes, or they can sic the chihuahua on them.

Read More →


NLRB To Force Companies To Turn Over Employee Telephone Numbers & E-Mail Addresses To Unions?


Undaunted by the constitutionally-questionable appointment of three members to Barack Obama’s National Labor Relations Board, union attorney and current NLRB chairman Mark Pearce declared in an Associated Press interview that he and his union comrades are continuing their assault on the 93% of private-sector employees who are union-free.

In fact, if Obama’s union appointees have their way, all employees who are targeted for unionization will have their employers forced to turn over their home telephone number and e-mail addresses to unions.

Ever since the 1960s, when unions have targeted companies for unionization through a NLRB-supervised election, employers have been required to turn over the list of employee names and their home addresses. The NLRB, in turn, promptly gives the list of employee names and home addresses to the involved union(s).

This list, called an Excelsior List, gives union organizers the ability to conduct intrusive home visits prior to the NLRB election. As is often said, just as when any other salesperson doing door-to-door sales knocks at the door, targeted employees can invite the union organizers into their homes, or they can sic the chihuahua on them.

Read More →


Tyranny’s Friend


The greatest enemy that exists to freedom is tyranny. Tyranny is above the law, ignores the law, makes up its own rules, steals power from others elected to govern, and defends the actions of lawless men. President Obama has increasingly shown himself to be a lawless man, whether its failing to enforce laws he doesn’t approve of (see DOMA, immigration) or making up his own rules. We are either a nation of laws or a nation of men. We can’t be both.

The president’s recent appointment of unvetted candidates to head bureaucratic agencies with broad regulatory authority without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate is just the latest example that he is turning us from a nation of laws into a nation of men. This skirting of the Constitution is not only unprecedented in our history, but it fits the very type of executive fiat that is almost exclusive to banana republics.

Liberals, leftists, and apologists for the Democratic Party have tried to downplay the concern by confusing the issue and slyly spinning the president’s non-recess “recess appointments” as some ambiguous legal matter open to broad interpretation. It’s not. The arguments they have mounted are weak and ill-advised. They are made not out of a desire to defend America’s Constitution or the Republic for which it stands, but to defend one single ruler with which they sympathize. President Obama’s actions and their successful defense of them could be the downfall of our representative democracy, bringing an end to the checks and balances that keep our government from abusing power.

The left’s first inclination is to compare anything President Obama does to George W. Bush, because of course Barack Obama ran on four more years of governing exactly like Bush. But any comparison to President Bush’s appointments falls flat. President Bush never made a recess appointment during a pro forma session. In fact, the pro forma sessions were started by Harry Reid to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments. Even Harry Reid won’t dispute this.

The left has also attempted to justify Obama’s actions by blaming Republicans. This argument goes something like, “well, he tried to do it the right way, but Republicans are too much of obstructionists, so he had to bend the law.” Okay, first off, either you have principles or you don’t. You don’t just have principles when its convenient. Secondly, Democrats used the same tactics to bottle up President Bush’s appointments, and yet the conservative leader most vilified and despised by the left in the last 30 years, called everything from “illegitimate” to “Hitler”, never felt compelled to make such an overreach.

More importantly, two of the appointments President Obama made to the NLRB were new names that have not had a chance to be interviewed by the U.S. Senate. In other words, their appointments hadn’t stalled anywhere.

While recess appointments have been ruled constitutional, that doesn’t mean they aren’t ripe for abuse. It’s true that both President Clinton and Bush made over 100 of them, but none occurred while the U.S. Senate was actually in session (pro forma or not).  Further, it has been generally agreed by legal advisors to the last three presidents, including Obama’s own Justice Department, that a recess must last longer than three days for a president to enact his recess appointment authority.

Frighteningly, President Obama has thrown all the rules out the window and challenged the Senate’s power to approve any presidential appointment at all. Based on this new logic, he could make an appointment while the Senate adjourns to lunch. Not needing any votes of confirmation, one supposes he could even appoint whomever his leftist heart desires to the Supreme Court. Sure, it all sounds like fun and games to clowns like Jon Stewart, but some of us take this kind of fundamental shift in power seriously.

The left has never been a big fan of the Constitution, seeing it as an obstacle to all the Big Government they are sure we must desire, but let’s take a look at it anyways. Article 1, Section 2 is very clear:

“He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law.”

Since the nation’s founding, the U.S. Senate has had the power to reject poorly vetted presidential appointees. Even the great George Washington’s nominees faced scrutiny, proving no one is above reproach.

By skirting the U.S. Senate, President Obama has challenged the very core of our system of government, and it was not by accident. If he had acted just one day sooner, the president could have tempered this crisis by at least making an intersession appointment. While still shorter than the usually agreed-upon three day recess, he would have at least had Teddy Roosevelt’s precedent from 1908 to stand on, albeit under completely different circumstances. Instead, the president waited to make an intrasession appointment during the shortest of short recesses. There’s only one logical reason for this, and that’s to permanently seize power from a legislative branch that has repeatedly been a roadblock to much of his socialist-progressive agenda.

If Obama’s actions are allowed to stand, it opens the door for him or any future president (should we be so lucky) to appoint whomever he wants to any bureaucratic or judicial position without the consent of any other elected representatives. Congress, the closest government body we have to the voice of the people, will be weakened to a whisper, and the president will be more empowered to act like a monarch or despot. The decisions of 1 man will be greater than the voices of 535 members of Congress, greater than the voices of 50 states, and yes, greater than the people. Tyranny has a friend in the Oval Office and his name is Barack Obama.


Cordray and NLRB Appointments Unconstitutional


Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese and Todd Gaziano, both with my employer The Heritage Foundation, have written an excellent piece in the Washington Post explaining why the installation of Richard Cordray as head of the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Richard Griffin, Sharon Block and Terence Flynn to be on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are unconstitutional acts.The president claimed to use the constitutional power of the president to make recess appointments.

As another Heritage colleague, Hans von Spakovsky, explains for Pajamas Media, Congress is not in recess. The Senate actually conducted some very important business during one of the “pro-forma” sessions the White House has called a “gimmick”: On Dec. 23, it passed the payroll tax extension that caused such a political uproar in Washington.

Congress has five options to respond to this power grab by the executive branch of the federal government:

  1. Filibuster all nominations and deny unanimous consent to the waiver of any rule with regard to nominations until these four unconstitutional appointments are rescinded
  2. Condition passage of all must-pass legislation on the rescission of these unconstitutional appointments
  3. Conduct vigorous oversight to demand the production of witnesses and documents supporting the president’s legal theory justifying this unprecedented power grab
  4. Make major cuts in funding of the NLRB and the Department of the Treasury where the CFPB was placed by its authorizing statute
  5. Pursue legal remedies to get those unconstitutionally appointed officials out of office. 

Read More →


Cordray and NLRB Appointments Unconstitutional


Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese and Todd Gaziano, both with my employer The Heritage Foundation, have written an excellent piece in the Washington Post explaining why the installation of Richard Cordray as head of the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Richard Griffin, Sharon Block and Terence Flynn to be on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are unconstitutional acts.The president claimed to use the constitutional power of the president to make recess appointments.

As another Heritage colleague, Hans von Spakovsky, explains for Pajamas Media, Congress is not in recess. The Senate actually conducted some very important business during one of the “pro-forma” sessions the White House has called a “gimmick”: On Dec. 23, it passed the payroll tax extension that caused such a political uproar in Washington.

Congress has five options to respond to this power grab by the executive branch of the federal government:

  1. Filibuster all nominations and deny unanimous consent to the waiver of any rule with regard to nominations until these four unconstitutional appointments are rescinded
  2. Condition passage of all must-pass legislation on the rescission of these unconstitutional appointments
  3. Conduct vigorous oversight to demand the production of witnesses and documents supporting the president’s legal theory justifying this unprecedented power grab
  4. Make major cuts in funding of the NLRB and the Department of the Treasury where the CFPB was placed by its authorizing statute
  5. Pursue legal remedies to get those unconstitutionally appointed officials out of office. 

Read More →


Union Bosses Applaud Obama’s Unconstitutional Appointments to Union-Controlled NLRB


On Wednesday afternoon, the current President of the United States did what may be described as an unconstitutional end run around the United States Senate by “recess appointing” three nominees to the National Labor Relations Board (as well as to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) even though the Senate is not in recess.

Notwithstanding the CFPB appointment, Obama’s seating of the three NLRB appointees—two of whom are  ardently pro-union and demonstrate Obama’s ongoing willingness to continue his union-backed carpet-bombing campaign on millions of job creators—drew immediate fire U.S. House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN), who stated:

“President Obama’s stunning move to install not one but three new members to the National Labor Relations Board without a hearing or a vote in the United States Senate is an unprecedented abuse of power and an affront to the will of the American people.

Read More →


Union Bosses Applaud Obama’s Unconstitutional Appointments to Union-Controlled NLRB


On Wednesday afternoon, the current President of the United States did what may be described as an unconstitutional end run around the United States Senate by “recess appointing” three nominees to the National Labor Relations Board (as well as to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) even though the Senate is not in recess.

Notwithstanding the CFPB appointment, Obama’s seating of the three NLRB appointees—two of whom are  ardently pro-union and demonstrate Obama’s ongoing willingness to continue his union-backed carpet-bombing campaign on millions of job creators—drew immediate fire U.S. House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN), who stated:

“President Obama’s stunning move to install not one but three new members to the National Labor Relations Board without a hearing or a vote in the United States Senate is an unprecedented abuse of power and an affront to the will of the American people.

Read More →


Union Retaliated Against Boeing’s South Carolina Employees, NLRB Charge Alleges


Having posted extensively on the Machinists’ union smokescreen at Boeing, there is some sense of satisfaction in knowing that Boeing’s union-free employees in South Carolina are not letting the union get away with retaliating against them for choosing to be union-free.

Indeed, were it not for the fact that the once-unionized Boeing employees in South Carolina kicked the Machinists union out of their workplace, the union would likely never have filed a charge against Boeing for locating the 787 work in South Carolina.

Well, with free legal help from the National Right to Work Foundation, three Boeing employees filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board against the International Association of Machinists on Wednesday.

Read More →

Category: , ,

Union Retaliated Against Boeing’s South Carolina Employees, NLRB Charge Alleges


Having posted extensively on the Machinists’ union smokescreen at Boeing, there is some sense of satisfaction in knowing that Boeing’s union-free employees in South Carolina are not letting the union get away with retaliating against them for choosing to be union-free.

Indeed, were it not for the fact that the once-unionized Boeing employees in South Carolina kicked the Machinists union out of their workplace, the union would likely never have filed a charge against Boeing for locating the 787 work in South Carolina.

Well, with free legal help from the National Right to Work Foundation, three Boeing employees filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board against the International Association of Machinists on Wednesday.

Read More →

Category: , ,

NLRB Watch: Collusion Investigations & Another Union Nomination


Because there are several significant things going on with President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board, rather than doing several posts, the following is a summary of the more important issues this week:

Barking Up The Wrong Tree on Boeing Issue?

When the new four-year contract extension between Boeing and the Machinists union was ratified earlier this month, part of the agreement was that the union would withdraw its complaint with President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board over the opening of the company’s non-union facility in South Carolina. As is fairly common in unfair labor practice cases, once the Charging Party (the union in this case) withdrew its charge, the NLRB dropped the matter.

The fact that the NLRB dropped its complaint against Boeing has fueled speculation that the NLRB and the union were colluding all along.

While collusion between the union and the NLRB is certainly possible, the NLRB’s dropping of the complaint against Boeing is hopefully not the basis for the investigations that are being called for by Senator Graham [R-SC] or Congressman Issa [R-CA].

Read More →