For the last several years, outside of union bosses themselves, there has been no greater proponent behind the hallucinogenically-named Employee Free Choice Act—the failed bill that effectively would have killed secret-ballot elections on unionization in the workplace—than California Democrat Congressman George Miller. In fact, going all the way back to 2003, Miller has introduced the job-killing legislation in the 108th, 109th and 110th Congress', where it finally passed the House in 2007 (but stalled in the Senate).
Since EFCA is effectively dead for the time being, union bosses and their dues-funded Democrats are relying on the union-controlled National Labor Relations Board to unionize America's workforce for them. However, unemployment is still hovering around 9% and under-employment closer to 17%, and we also have a national debt that is simply staggering. As a result, Republican lawmakers are looking for savings in as many areas as possible. This includes $50 million from the NLRB—one several agencies that is actively working to kill an already anemic economic recovery.
Despite the fact that the NLRB's caseload is considerably less than it was ten years ago, the AFL-CIO, as well as the union zealots who serve on the NLRB, and Democrat George Miller are apoplectic over the proposed cuts—presumably because the cuts throw a monkey wrench into their plans.
Following a seeming alarmist response from the NLRB to the proposed cuts made on February 18th, for which House Committee on Education and the Workforce challenged the NLRB's claims (asking for the supporting data), the Congressional Research Service compiled data for the House committee, which was dated March 15th. Interestingly, the "new" data was done nearly a month after the NLRB's assertions were made. Yet, miraculously, the data mirrors nearly the exact figures stated by the NLRB Chair and Acting General Counsel in February.
Why was new data compiled when the request was for data for previous assertions? Perhaps it's just a fluke, but could it be because the new Congressional Research Service data was compiled by analysts represented by a union?
The Congressional Research Employees Association is the labor organization representing more than 500 employees here at CRS. We have represented CRS workers since 1976 and maintain a 50% membership rate, one of the highest rates in the Federal sector. CREA represents all workers in CRS – analysts, attorneys, bibliographers, clerical staff, technical staff, librarians and library technicians, etc.
Perhaps, as well, it is only a coincidence that, almost like clockwork, George Miller jumped in with his own letter to the House committee, stating:
The non-partisan Congressional Research Service explains that, if the $50 million in cuts approved by the House of Representatives became law, the staff of the NLRB would likely be furloughed anywhere between 58 to 64 days.
As you know, the NLRB' s mission is vital to enforce protections for American workers and private businesses under the National Labor Relations Act. According to the CRS, "[r'[educed NLRB staffing could affect employers, employees, and unions."
It does make one wonder, did Congressman Miller or other Democrats ask the CRS to pull the data?
Given the NLRB's effort to enact EFCA by regulatory fiat by issuing decisions that allows for employees to be threatened by union adherents, gives unions the ability to undermine employee rights through sweetheart deals, enables unions the ability to pepper employers with unfair labor practice charges in order to infringe on private property rights, as well as the possibility of establishing multiple mini-unions in a single workplace, it does make one wonder if something more nefarious is afoot.
Then, again, it could all just be a fluke...perhaps a coincidence.
As former Teamster attorney and current-NLRB Chair, Wilma Liebman, travels about participating in pro-union/anti-business conferences, is there any reason to believe that the agenda of the NLRB is anything but pro-union and, like their counterparts in Wisconsin, willing to stoop to whatever means necessary to fulfill their agenda?
Perhaps $50 million in taxpayer savings is far too little to seek in the budget.
Photo Credit: Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi