ShareThis Page

Stopping skulduggery: The NLRB vote

| Sunday, Nov. 27, 2011

Democrats who have made the National Labor Relations Board a rubber stamp for Big Labor shouldn't be surprised if Brian Hayes, the NLRB's lone GOP member, makes good on his threat to block this week's hurry-up attempt to implement union-friendly "snap elections" in workplaces by resigning.

His resignation (or a boycott) would deny the three-member NLRB a quorum. And without a quorum, the two-Democrat NLRB majority couldn't hold the vote they've set for Wednesday on a final rule that would cut the wait before a union representation election -- now five to six weeks -- to 14 days at most.

The majority Dems have frozen Mr. Hayes, who'd surely vote against the proposal, out of deliberations on it. They want to hurry the vote because Democrat member Craig Becker's recess appointment expires at year's end.

Peter Schaumber, former NLRB chairman, likens the "snap elections" proposal to letting only one party talk before a political election, then cutting off debate. Mr. Hayes blocking it would be fine -- but the larger problem would remain.

As its attempt to deny Boeing its right to do business where it wishes also shows, this jobs-killing NLRB is union bosses' puppet. An economy struggling under Obamanomics' burdens cannot afford any more NLRB gifts to Big Labor.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.