The NLRB vs. Boeing: Issa's subpoenas
By subpoenaing documents from the National Labor Relations Board's lawsuit against Boeing Co., Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is appropriately pressuring the Democrat-dominated NLRB, which is intolerably pressuring businesses' freedom to locate where they wish.
The NLRB contends Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner production line in right-to-work South Carolina violates labor laws, labeling its location as retaliation against organized labor for past strikes at Boeing's Washington state facilities. Boeing says it chose South Carolina for valid economic reasons.
Rep. Issa is right: The NLRB lawsuit does interfere with Boeing's ability to decide where it does business. What's worse is the precedent that would be set if the lawsuit succeeds, which would enable government to usurp all U.S. companies' right to decide -- for themselves -- where they do business.
That no doubt would please the anti-business Obama administration, its Big Labor backers and their NLRB minions. But this insidious form of top-down, centrally planned, leftist industrial policy would lead to economic catastrophe.
Clearly, Issa's battle is worth fighting.
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.