According to The Hill, unions and their Democrats in Congress are apoplectic over the fact that Brian Hayes, the lone Republican on Barack Obama’s National Labor Relations Board, has (allegedly) threatened to resign in protest over the union appointees at the NLRB deciding on Wednesday (Nov. 30th) to force ambush elections on companies and their employees. Due to a Supreme Court decision, where the high court ruled there must be a minimum three NLRB members to affect a quorum, with only three current members, a resignation at the NLRB would incapacitate the union-run agency.
Notwithstanding Democrats fleeing from their jobs in Wisconsin earlier this year, oddly, neither the union bosses nor their paid shills in Congress seem to realize (or if they do, they’re not publicly admitting it) that the idea of incapacitating the NLRB came from their own playbook.
Referencing the August open letter in which NLRB member Brian Hayes was urged to resign because though his resignation, “…the NLRB will become incapacitated—unable to wreak any more havoc on America’s job creators,” the Hill reports:
The labor movement is crying foul over a resignation threat from a member of the National Labor Relations Board that would effectively quash a long-sought change to union election rules.
The backlash to Hayes’s threat from unions has been intense, as a long-held goal of simplifying and speeding up union elections would be stopped in its tracks by the maneuver. [Emphasis added.]
This past Wednesday, Congressman George Miller [D-CA] sent the lone Republican at the NLRB an accusatory letter and document request inferring that NLRB-Member Brian Hayes may have had “private requests or enticements that you may have received to resign prematurely, threaten to do so, or otherwise obstruct or incapacitate the Board…”
These open calls for you to cripple the Board began at least as early as August 2011. The website LaborUnionReport.com urged you “to resign your position as a member of the National Labor Relations Board,” asserting that “[i]f you resign your position, the NLRB will become incapacitated.” LaborUnionReport.com added that “your resignation will help incapacitate the NLRB until after the 2012 elections.”
It is hard to see on what basis this claim was made. As examples of “improper influence” Miller’s letter cites a posting on the anti-union website LaborUnionReport.com and a public comment by South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, both NLRB critics who have urged that Hayes step down to deny it a quorum. That’s it. There is no indication that Hayes corresponded with either or was even aware of their comments. Neither could be reached for comment.
Miller’s spokesman, Aaron Albright, could cite no other evidence of any other groups trying to influence Hayes. Nor could he say what rules or laws would have been violated if Hayes had contact with them. Nevertheless, he said the committee needed to probe all of Hayes’ communications to see if he was given any “inducements” to quit.
It appears as though either Miller or his staff did not do their homework or, perhaps, they didn’t get their fact sheets from the AFL-CIO straight, since the reference to South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley “calling on” Hayes to resign was, in actuality, a response to a Daily Caller reporter’s question.
“I would support anything that would disband the NLRB,” Haley said in response to a question from The Daily Caller asking if she would back calls for Hayes to resign.
Oddly enough, what seems to have escaped both the unions who are crying ‘foul,’ as well as Democrats like George Miller is that the call for Brian Hayes to resign was entirely inspired by their own actions, beginning in 2007.
The Hill piece from Friday quotes several union spokesman upset with the possibility that Hayes would deny them their ability to trick more people into unions through ambush elections.
“We think it’s really terrible to shut down a government agency over ideology,” Peter Colavito, director of government relations for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), told The Hill. “I’m really struggling to find precedent for this. It’s really an outrage as an attack on workers’ rights.”
The Nashville action was one of more than 20 held around the nation as thousands of union members said it is time for the labor board to be “closed for renovations” until a pro-worker board is appointed.
Apparently, not a single union “spokesman” or union-bought Democrat remembers union bosses attacking the NLRB, as when the AFL-CIO’s Stewart Acuff stated that “this Board needs to be shut down!”
Apparently, not a single union “spokesman” or union-bought Democrat remembers United Mine Workers’ boss Cecil Roberts’ rant on the NLRB?
And, who (except union bosses and their Democrat politicians) could forget this little diddy from the union protests outside the NLRB offices in Portland?
Apparently, not a single union “spokesman” or union-bought Democrat remembers the Senate (in coordination with union bosses) blocking President Bush’s NLRB appointments until 2009, thereby crippling the Board until Barack Obama could appoint his union-picked appointees to radically alter the labor relations landscape in America?
Apparently, not a single union “spokesman” or union-bought Democrat realizes that calling for Brian Hayes to resign (whether he does or not) is merely using their own set of rules against them?
Well, you get the point, don’t you?
Congressman Miller stated in his letter to NLRB Member Hayes that “the Board is an independent federal agency that administers and enforces the National Labor Relations Act for both employers and employees.” Given the union extremism of the union appointees within the Obama NLRB, Miller’s narrative is disingenuous, at best.
This is why, as unions said only a few years ago: “It’s time to close the NLRB for renovations.”
Member Hayes: Let Them Whine, It’s Time To Resign.
A Final Note to Congressman Miller:Since 19 out of the top 20 of your contributors are unions, the reference in your letter to “special interest organizations and individuals” calling on Hayes to resign is fascinatingly hypocritical. Further, if by exercising the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment and calling, in an open letter, for a government official to resign is what you consider “improper influence” from a “special interest organization,” you may have forgotten the Constitution you swore to uphold. Lastly, Congressman, LaborUnionReport.com is not “owned” by Kulture, LLC—they are two legally separate entities—and no one from either entity has ever met, spoken to, or even been in the same room as Brian Hayes.
Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES Politicians tell a lot of whoppers, but some are obviously more blatant or galling than others. In John Kasich’s case, he doesn’t think small and goes straight for the top, as part of a smear against his opponents and a lie about himself. Take a look: First, this article from the Wall Street Journal, hilariously titled ““Kasich: I’m a | Read More »
Pretty amazing. Ted Cruz has released a new ad attacking Trump over his “sleaze” and they didn’t mention the lengthy list of failed business ventures, the small vendors forced into insolvency because Trump declared bankruptcy, his serial adulteries and infidelities.
Share on Facebook 1 1 SHARES As the work week comes to a close I can’t help but wonder what did we really learn from the past five days. For me I learned the people of New Hampshire are down right kooky. I get the whole we like Donald thing (I do not agree with it mind you but at least I understand how you | Read More »
Trump leads among those describing themselves as “very conservative,” “somewhat conservative,” “moderate” and “somewhat liberal.” John Kasich leads among the few South Carolina GOP voters who describe themselves as “very liberal.”