The poster ruling: A necessary slap
A federal appellate court ruling that struck down the National Labor Relations Board's “poster rule” is a win for business and worker rights. It's also just as big a win for the rule of law — and a necessary rebuke to the Obama administration's disregard for it.
The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) and other business groups challenged the proposed rule. It would have required businesses to display posters informing employees of their right to unionize.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the NLRB lacks authority under the National Labor Relations Act to require that businesses display such posters and to treat poster-rule violations as unfair labor practices, as it wanted to do.
The court also faulted the poster rule for compelling speech — because the posters would have said nothing about decertifying unions or avoiding union dues.
Karen Harned, executive director of the NFIB's Small Business Legal Center, called the ruling “a monumental victory for small-business owners ... .” She also said it “reaffirms that the authority of the NLRB is narrow and limited and defined by Congress in the National Labor Relations Act.”
This is a sorely needed reminder for the Obama administration — whose bogus “recess” appointments to the NLRB didn't pass legal muster, either — that it can't run roughshod over the law, even to please the union bosses who pull its strings.
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.
- Another carbon credit scheme
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- More foreign aid is no answer to border problem
- Tuesday essay: Sophie
- Rick Perry’s indictment: The real abuse
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- Another LCB fumble: The status-quo stupor
- Palmer v. District of Columbia: Upholding the 2nd Amendment
- Rejecting Common Core: Flawed school standards
- The Thursday Wrap
- Tuesday essay: Sophie