Republican elected officials to labor movement: "If we can't win, we are going to take our ball and go home.  So there!"

Will GOP NLRB Member Resign to Shut Down Labor Agency?

By Mike Elk

NLRB member Brian Hayes.   (Photo courtesy NLRB.gov)

Rumors are swirling around Brian Hayes
WASHINGTON, D.C.—On November 30, the National Labor Relations Board is scheduled to vote on proposed rule changes that would speed up union elections by disallowing some appeals until after a workplace vote occurs. Employers typically aim to delay an election so that they can use the time to intimidate employees to voting against a union.
But that vote may never take place, because some conservative members of Congress are pushing a plan that would force the NLRB, which is an independent federal agency tasked with enforcing labor law, to shut down. There are currently three people serving on the NLRB; if that is reduced by one, the body will be unable to issue valid rulings.
In New Process Steel, L.P. vs National Labor Relations Board, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the NLRB cannot decide cases with only two members on the NLRB. For 27 months, during the last year of President Bush’s term and the first 14 months of the Obama administration, the NLRB only had two members (a Democrat and a Republican). The two members agreed to work together on common sense cases where they could easily agree on a ruling; they passed judgment in nearly 600 cases.
But the Supreme Court invalidated all those rulings because they were made with only two members. Therefore, some conservative politicians such as South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and prominent right-wing blogs such as RedState.com are pushing for Republican NLRB Board Member Brian Hayes to resign before the vote for the rules is issued on November 30, which would effectively shut down the agency.
The rumors have gotten so strong of conservative pressure on Hayes to resign that Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) wrote the following in an op-ed for The Hill:

Republican elected officials have gone after this small federal agency guns a-blazing—attacking its funding, refusing to confirm nominees, threatening the professional credentials and livelihoods of nonpartisan career employees, and even taking the unprecedented step of calling on Republican Board Member Brian Hayes to abandon the duties he swore to uphold and resign in a blatant political move to incapacitate the agency altogether.

As the NLRB moves to vote on the rule change, all eyes are on Hayes to see if will effectively incapacitating the federal agency. (A spokesperson for the NLRB said Hayes has not commented on the matter.)
But on December 31, the NLRB could once again effectively become paralyzed in a different way. NLRB member Craig Becker’s recess appointment to the board expires when Congress adjourns at the end of 2011. (Republicans in Congress  filibustered Becker's nomination, forcing President Obama to appoint Becker through a back door, so to speak.)
Now there is talk that Republicans in Congress may keep a few members in session over the Christmas holidays in order to prevent President Obama from making another recess appointment to the NLRB. This could potentially focus all eyes—at least those of people who care about the fate of the labor movement, which is very much connected to the NLRB—on President Obama as the election year kicks off. Organized labor’s support may in part hinge on whether or not the president is willing to fight to make an appointment to the NLRB.
President Obama didn't exactly display a sense of urgency to ensure the NLRB can do its job by leaving the agency to languish with only two members for the first 14 months of his term, before being finally forced to issue a recess appointment. And he may be averse to making a recess appointment—they are traditionally controversial—in an election year, particularly with the Boeing case being a hot-button issue among GOP presidential candidates.

Friday Nov 18, 2011 5:44 pm

What Is Killing the Labor Movement?

By David Moberg

A new study offers a surprisingly specific answer
What—or who—is killing off the American labor movement? Is it globalization? New technologies? A shift toward services?

None of the above, say John Schmitt and Alexandra Mitukiewicz of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a progressive Washington think tank. It's politics, they argue, in a study released this week titled "Politics Matter: Changes in Unionization Rates in Rich Countries."

Schmitt and Mitukiewicz compared the experiences from 1960 to the present of 21 rich countries, all of whom had a similar level of global integration and technological development. Despite those resemblances, there were several very different starting points and trajectories for labor movements over the decades with regard to membership and contract coverage. (The two are often quite distinct, since union contracts are extended to nonunion workers in many countries.) And the different patterns closely correlate with the dominant political tradition of the countries.

In the traditionally social democratic countries, like Denmark and Sweden, unions started with very high coverage that grew slightly—often to more than 90 percent—while membership declined a small amount. Countries with a Christian democratic or continental market economy, like Italy, Germany and The Netherlands, have typically seen only modest declines in coverage and membership.
By contrast, labor movements in the largely English-speaking "liberal market economies," like the United States, Australia and New Zealand, have suffered sharp declines, some more dramatic as a percentage of workers than in the United States. (Just 6.9 pecent of private-sector American workers are union members, according to the Labor Department.)

"The patterns are consistent with the view that national politics are a more important determinant of recent trends in unionization than globalization or technological change," the authors conclude.

The decline of unions makes it even more difficult to change the political culture to be less hostile to union organizing. And growing union weakness also contributes to rising economic inequality. In a study published last August, sociologists Bruce Western of Harvard and Jake Rosenfeld of the University of Washington concluded that union membership decline contributed to as much as a third of the increase in wage inequality in the past several decades.

The implications for labor are that it needs political influence and change in both laws and culture as well as more organizing efforts to grow again. But unfortunately, many Democrats sill do not see the future of their party as depending on that new political culture and a union revival.

This leaves me speechless...and pissed off!   Chinese firms hired to build roads and bridges in this country with Chinese workers.  Unpatriotic yes, but also economic suicide. 


http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/us-bridges-roads-built-chinese-firms-14594513?tab=9482930&section=1206853&playlist=14594944

We won a huge victory in Ohio yesterday.  
Labor send a loud message across the nation - Don't pick a fight with organized workers!

Rex Sinquefield is using some of his billions to pay petition gatherers to put this monster on the ballot.    This is another attempt by the richest 1% to get more money and power, while the other 99% of  us pay in higher taxes and reduced services.  If someone asks you to sign a petition, Decline to Sign!  If you have the time, stand with them and tell others to decline to sign.   The best way to beat this is to keep it off of the ballot. 
 

Sinquefield tax plan helps rich, hurts everyone else

Kansas City Star Editorial, Nov. 5, 2011

Replacing the state income tax with an expanded sales tax would be great for people with very high incomes. They would gain more in tax savings than the extra amount they would have to spend on food, clothing, vehicles and almost everything else.

Included among those beneficiaries would be Rex Sinquefield, the St. Louis multimillionaire who is bankrolling an initiative petition drive to phase out Missouri’s income tax.

But Sinquefield’s gain would come at the expense of middle- and-low-income households, which would not recoup enough in income tax savings to make up for the cost of a higher sales tax on a greater variety of goods and services. Many seniors would receive no income tax break but would pay much more for daily living purchases.

Sinquefield’s scheme would also create a huge hole in the state’s budget, forcing more layoffs of teachers and other public employees.

Fortunately, a broad coalition is trying to head off a statewide vote on the income tax repeal. Coalition for Missouri’s Future includes education groups, unions, the Missouri Municipal League and civic and business groups. They plan to ask Sinquefield, a retired investment banker, to scrap his effort to put an initiative on the November 2012 statewide ballot.

That is a worthy objective. Eliminating or severely restricting the tax on individual income is a popular idea among a select group of economists, theorists and politicians, including Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas. If put into practice as Sinquefield and his backers propose, however, the effects would be devastating.

They want to eliminate the tax source which brings in 65 percent of Missouri’s revenue, claiming unconvincingly that getting rid of the individual income tax will cause new businesses to flock to Missouri and produce enough new revenues to close a $3 billion budget gap.

Under their plan, consumers would pay a 5.5 percent sales tax on food, which currently is exempt. Many services would be newly subjected to a sales tax, which in most cases would be capped at 10 percent, with the state entitled to 7 percent of that amount. The state would receive more than half of the tax for its general fund and dedicated purposes. Over time, some local governments could be forced to reduce their existing sales taxes.

Instead of inhabiting a low-tax utopia, most Missourians would experience a higher cost of living and decimated state services.

Sinquefield’s plan is a loser for nearly everyone. Let’s hope he can be convinced to spare his fellow citizens from a costly referendum on his personal fancy.