« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

NLRB Staff Union Claims Pro-Union NLRB Bosses Have Declared War on NLRB Employees

When discussing the National Labor Relations Board and its pro-union slant these days, few realize that the staff within the NLRB is also unionized.

In fact, according to the National Labor Relations Board Union, the union represents over 950 NLRB attorneys, examiners and support staff. It is these individuals, along with their bosses within the NLRB, who are charged with remaining neutral in employer-union disputes—which makes it all the more interesting when the NLRB’s union charges NLRB management with “trying to destroy their employees’ union.”

According to a flyer distributed by the NRLBU, NLRB Chairman Mark Pearce (a union attorney) and Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon have declared war on NLRB attorneys.

The NLRB Union claims NLRB bosses are demanding that the union permit management to unitlaterally cut performance incentives “at a whim,” as well as an 85% cut in “official time” (which is the time spent to conduct union business at taxpayer expense).

The Acting General Counsel’s and Chairman’s attack on official time is the federal sector equivalent of an attack on a private sector union security clause.

Later, the NLRBU’s flyer states:

The NLRBU urges Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon and Chairman Mark Pearce to practice what they preach and to stop trying to destroy their employees’ union.

This isn’t the first time the NLRB has had a spat with its employees’ union. In 2009, the NLRBU urged a boycott and picketing of an event featuring then-NLRB Chairman (and ex-Teamster attorney) Wilma Liebman over a dispute.

The NLRBU had been encouraging local picketing to protest the Board’s refusal to bargain with a unit of its own employees. The Union claims that the Board’s conduct shows defiance of federal law and contempt for the rights of its employees. The dispute arose in 2005, when the NLRBU filed a petition with the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the federal-sector equivalent to the NLRB, to consolidate four previously separate groups of employees. The Board opposed consolidation, but the FLRA, after considering all the evidence, agreed with the Union. After employees voted overwhelmingly in favor of consolidation, the FLRA certified the Union as the lawful bargaining representative in the new unit.

Apparently, the bosses within Obama’s NLRB believe that what’s good for the goose (the private-sector) isn’t necessarily good for the (public-sector) gander.

__________________

“Socialism has no place in the hearts of those who would secure the fight for freedom and preserve democracy.” Samuel Gompers, American Federation of Labor, 1918

Cross-posted on LaborUnionReport.com

COMMENTS

  • spinoneone

    We are 0′s political appointees. We don’t have to comply with any stupid law. We are above that pettiness. Just ask Holder if you don’t believe us.

  • http://alpipkin.com/blog/ Alpip

    to bad if the NLRBU went on strike against the NLRB and neither one could do their jobs?!

    The Left eating its own. How tragic.

    • edintexas

      As a general rule, government employees can’t strike. Absolutely true for Federal employees, your local government may differ,

  • gs425

    lackeys working at the NLRB know what the term “useful idiot’ means.

  • strickler

    What better way to refute the Republican idea that Obama’s appointements to the NLRB are all lefty unionistas than to have the NLRB union start a campaign and spread propaganda that the NLRB is treating its own union unfairly?

    I know this makes me some sort of conspiracy theorist, but I am convinced there is massive coordination between the Obama campaign, unions, and the media. Not only is this spat perfect to defend Obama’s actions, but also setting it up now will allow the media to pull the trigger whenever a Republican candidate makes any Obama-Union connection.

    • davesinsanantonio

      that “rules I make for thee apply not to me.”

  • edintexas

    Almost a schadenfreude moment, except I doubt the Obama appointees feel any difficulty at all from this. So no “trouble” over which to gloat.