The NLRB vs. Boeing: Stop the games
The more that the National Labor Relations Board resists releasing documents related to its ridiculous case against Boeing Co., the more it seems the NLRB has something to hide -- from both Congress and, now, from the public.
Because the NLRB hasn't complied with a July 14 Freedom of Information Act request, Judicial Watch is now suing in federal court to obtain those documents.
Meanwhile, the NLRB also is resisting subpoenas for the same sort of documents that U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., issued in his role as House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman.
Both Judicial Watch and Rep. Issa believe the NLRB's case against Boeing is politically motivated. With the NLRB dominated by Democrat Obama appointees doing Big Labor's bidding by painting Boeing's new factory in right-to-work South Carolina as retaliation for past strikes at its unionized Washington state facilities, it's all too likely that the NLRB's withholding documents that would confirm their suspicions.
Given that all U.S. businesses' freedom to locate where they wish is at stake, the more pressure brought to bear on the NLRB and its case against Boeing -- an outrageous misuse of power for Big Labor's benefit -- the better.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.