Obama's NLRB Plays Santa to Unions

[Doc91678]

by Dr. Susan Berry
29 Dec 2012

While politicians have kept the focus on the fiscal cliff and displaced anger toward law-abiding citizens who own guns, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was able to quietly overturn longstanding precedents to give unions some Christmas gifts that will ultimately hand them a windfall.

In the steamrolling style that is now the hallmark of the Obama administration and its extensions, the NLRB voted 3-1 to gut the Supreme Court’s 1988 Communication Workers of America v. Beck decision, whereby union workers in non-right-to-work states were able to withhold the portion of their dues that unions spend on political activism. The NLRB now allows that unions no longer are required to provide proof, through audits of their finances, to so-called “Beck objectors” that their money is not spent on union politics.

In addition to saving unions from mandatory financial audits, the NLRB also decided that lobbying expenses are now “chargeable to [Beck] objectors, to the extent that they are germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment.”

These new rules mean that workers who are forced to join unions and pay union dues have less control than ever over how their money is spent by union leaders. Labor bosses can now spend those funds on just about any lobbying expense whatsoever and never have to justify it.


Read more at:
Obama's NLRB Plays Santa to Unions

 

[Amelia]

Trying to consolidate power without any apparent sense of how damaging these power plays are to their reputation.

If unions would SHOW that they're valuable, they would gain so much more than they're getting by measures such as this.

 

[JoeB131]

by Dr. Susan Berry
29 Dec 2012

While politicians have kept the focus on the fiscal cliff and displaced anger toward law-abiding citizens who own guns, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was able to quietly overturn longstanding precedents to give unions some Christmas gifts that will ultimately hand them a windfall.

In the steamrolling style that is now the hallmark of the Obama administration and its extensions, the NLRB voted 3-1 to gut the Supreme Court’s 1988 Communication Workers of America v. Beck decision, whereby union workers in non-right-to-work states were able to withhold the portion of their dues that unions spend on political activism. The NLRB now allows that unions no longer are required to provide proof, through audits of their finances, to so-called “Beck objectors” that their money is not spent on union politics.

In addition to saving unions from mandatory financial audits, the NLRB also decided that lobbying expenses are now “chargeable to [Beck] objectors, to the extent that they are germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment.”

These new rules mean that workers who are forced to join unions and pay union dues have less control than ever over how their money is spent by union leaders. Labor bosses can now spend those funds on just about any lobbying expense whatsoever and never have to justify it.


Read more at:
Obama's NLRB Plays Santa to Unions

Union leadership is elected by the rank and file, unlike CEO's who aren't, and can spend any amount of money they want on lobbying and political contributions.

This is an attempt to undermine unions by defunding their political arm, and the Obama folks were right to shoot it down.

 

[Stephanie]

Obama civilian army he promised us...to disrupt our lives

We see they are already creating havoc in some areas..

enjoy it, you all voted for it

 

[JoeB131]

Obama civilian army he promised us...to disrupt our lives

We see they are already creating havoc in some areas..

enjoy it, you all voted for it

I'm enjoying the crap out of it. Nice to see government on the side of working people again.

 

[Stephanie]

Obama civilian army he promised us...to disrupt our lives

We see they are already creating havoc in some areas..

enjoy it, you all voted for it

I'm enjoying the crap out of it. Nice to see government on the side of working people again.

That's good, I hope they hit you where it hurts..make sure you enjoy it..we can be like France where they shut down whole cities and services

 

[FJO]

Obama civilian army he promised us...to disrupt our lives

We see they are already creating havoc in some areas..

enjoy it, you all voted for it

I'm enjoying the crap out of it. Nice to see government on the side of working people again.

Two governments that are on the side of working people: State governments of Michigan and Wisconsin, as recent examples.

 

[Amelia]

Obama civilian army he promised us...to disrupt our lives

We see they are already creating havoc in some areas..

enjoy it, you all voted for it

I'm enjoying the crap out of it. Nice to see government on the side of working people again.

You're on the side of forcing members to pay for political activities they disagree with?

How is that a good thing for unions or the membership?

The reputation of unions has been severely tarnished because of their political activities. Forcing membership to pay for those political activities just gives more ammo to the right-to-work movement.

Unions have a place -- if they prove valuable, and if they don't minimize their perceived value by seeming like a old-fashioned Chicago-style arm of the Democrat party.

Instead of showing their value, they keep shooting themselves in the foot by overplaying.

 

[JoeB131]

Obama civilian army he promised us...to disrupt our lives

We see they are already creating havoc in some areas..

enjoy it, you all voted for it

I'm enjoying the crap out of it. Nice to see government on the side of working people again.

You're on the side of forcing members to pay for political activities they disagree with?

How is that a good thing for unions or the membership?

The reputation of unions has been severely tarnished because of their political activities. Forcing membership to pay for those political activities just gives more ammo to the right-to-work movement.

Unions have a place -- if they prove valuable, and if they don't minimize their perceived value by seeming like a old-fashioned Chicago-style arm of the Democrat party.

Instead of showing their value, they keep shooting themselves in the foot by overplaying.

You're right. There are some union members who are too stupid to realize that the Republicans are NOT their friends.

Hell, I fell for it for years.

doesn't take away from teh fact, if those guys don't like what the union leadershp is doing, they have the option of running for that leadership or supporting leaders that reflect their views.

"HEy, guys, let's sign on for the "Work Harder for Less M oney and Less Rights" Platform! Um.. guys. Guys? "

 

[mudwhistle]

by Dr. Susan Berry
29 Dec 2012

While politicians have kept the focus on the fiscal cliff and displaced anger toward law-abiding citizens who own guns, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was able to quietly overturn longstanding precedents to give unions some Christmas gifts that will ultimately hand them a windfall.

In the steamrolling style that is now the hallmark of the Obama administration and its extensions, the NLRB voted 3-1 to gut the Supreme Court’s 1988 Communication Workers of America v. Beck decision, whereby union workers in non-right-to-work states were able to withhold the portion of their dues that unions spend on political activism. The NLRB now allows that unions no longer are required to provide proof, through audits of their finances, to so-called “Beck objectors” that their money is not spent on union politics.

In addition to saving unions from mandatory financial audits, the NLRB also decided that lobbying expenses are now “chargeable to [Beck] objectors, to the extent that they are germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment.”

These new rules mean that workers who are forced to join unions and pay union dues have less control than ever over how their money is spent by union leaders. Labor bosses can now spend those funds on just about any lobbying expense whatsoever and never have to justify it.


Read more at:
Obama's NLRB Plays Santa to Unions

Without union money Obama never would have been re-elected.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Obama civilian army he promised us...to disrupt our lives

We see they are already creating havoc in some areas..

enjoy it, you all voted for it

I'm enjoying the crap out of it. Nice to see government on the side of working people again.

You're on the side of forcing members to pay for political activities they disagree with?

How is that a good thing for unions or the membership?

The reputation of unions has been severely tarnished because of their political activities. Forcing membership to pay for those political activities just gives more ammo to the right-to-work movement.

Unions have a place -- if they prove valuable, and if they don't minimize their perceived value by seeming like a old-fashioned Chicago-style arm of the Democrat party.

Instead of showing their value, they keep shooting themselves in the foot by overplaying.

Amelia, he's in a thread I started advocating for a 93% income tax. He's a Communist, through and through.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

How can a board overturn a SCOTUS decision???? I don't get that part.

 

[FJO]

JOEb131 opined:

"if those guys don't like what the union leadershp is doing, they have the option of running for that leadership or supporting leaders that reflect their views."

Conveniently forgetting that those union members who are forced to donate part of their hard earned money to thugs who promote political views they don't support, have NO OPTION of not being members of the union.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

ANYONE?? Since when did the Labor Board trump a SCOTUS decision?!

 

[tap4154]

Forcing employees to contribute to Democrats as a condition to be employed is unconstitutional.

We live under a tyranny...

IMO the next 4 years are gonna get REAL ugly. The people aren't going to stand for these constant edicts from this White House, and trampling over our Constitutional rights!

 

[Amelia]

I'm enjoying the crap out of it. Nice to see government on the side of working people again.

You're on the side of forcing members to pay for political activities they disagree with?

How is that a good thing for unions or the membership?

The reputation of unions has been severely tarnished because of their political activities. Forcing membership to pay for those political activities just gives more ammo to the right-to-work movement.

Unions have a place -- if they prove valuable, and if they don't minimize their perceived value by seeming like a old-fashioned Chicago-style arm of the Democrat party.

Instead of showing their value, they keep shooting themselves in the foot by overplaying.

You're right. There are some union members who are too stupid to realize that the Republicans are NOT their friends.

Hell, I fell for it for years.

doesn't take away from teh fact, if those guys don't like what the union leadershp is doing, they have the option of running for that leadership or supporting leaders that reflect their views.

"HEy, guys, let's sign on for the "Work Harder for Less M oney and Less Rights" Platform! Um.. guys. Guys? "

And until then they should be forced to contribute to political campaigns they disagree with or lose their job.

Sorry -- that's not going to fly. Unions are losing ground. They're not showing their worth to prospective members. They're going to keep withering.

Forcing people to contribute to political campaigns will not be worth the little bit of extra money they get. They need to gather their best stories and launch a good PR campaign to get the public and especially prospective dues-paying members on their side.

Unions are hastening the decline of any help they could give to the middle class and the NLRB is doing them no favors.

 

[JoeB131]

Without union money Obama never would have been re-elected.

Without Corporate Money from the Koch brothers, Romney wouldn't have made it past New Hampshire.

 

[JoeB131]

And until then they should be forced to contribute to political campaigns they disagree with or lose their job.

Sorry -- that's not going to fly. Unions are losing ground. They're not showing their worth to prospective members. They're going to keep withering.

Forcing people to contribute to political campaigns will not be worth the little bit of extra money they get. They need to gather their best stories and launch a good PR campaign to get the public and especially prospective dues-paying members on their side.

Unions are hastening the decline of any help they could give to the middle class and the NLRB is doing them no favors.

Then what are you whining about, then?

Simple solution. Get Corporate AND Union money out of elections. Public financing of elections, NOBODY can contribute more than $100, no Pacs, or SUper Pacs and very limited spending by parties.

If the Unions were supporting Republicans, you'd have no problem with this rule.

 

[Amelia]

And until then they should be forced to contribute to political campaigns they disagree with or lose their job.

Sorry -- that's not going to fly. Unions are losing ground. They're not showing their worth to prospective members. They're going to keep withering.

Forcing people to contribute to political campaigns will not be worth the little bit of extra money they get. They need to gather their best stories and launch a good PR campaign to get the public and especially prospective dues-paying members on their side.

Unions are hastening the decline of any help they could give to the middle class and the NLRB is doing them no favors.

Then what are you whining about, then?

Simple solution. Get Corporate AND Union money out of elections. Public financing of elections, NOBODY can contribute more than $100, no Pacs, or SUper Pacs and very limited spending by parties.

If the Unions were supporting Republicans, you'd have no problem with this rule.

What am I whining about? I'm "whining" about the loss of unions. I don't want to see them go by the wayside. I'm pissed off at how badly they've been acting because it's going to be a loss to the middle class when they're gone. But that's the track we're on, thanks to union excesses and helped on by the appearance of them being given spoils by the Democrats they elected.

 

[gallantwarrior]

by Dr. Susan Berry
29 Dec 2012

While politicians have kept the focus on the fiscal cliff and displaced anger toward law-abiding citizens who own guns, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) was able to quietly overturn longstanding precedents to give unions some Christmas gifts that will ultimately hand them a windfall.

In the steamrolling style that is now the hallmark of the Obama administration and its extensions, the NLRB voted 3-1 to gut the Supreme Court’s 1988 Communication Workers of America v. Beck decision, whereby union workers in non-right-to-work states were able to withhold the portion of their dues that unions spend on political activism. The NLRB now allows that unions no longer are required to provide proof, through audits of their finances, to so-called “Beck objectors” that their money is not spent on union politics.

In addition to saving unions from mandatory financial audits, the NLRB also decided that lobbying expenses are now “chargeable to [Beck] objectors, to the extent that they are germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment.”

These new rules mean that workers who are forced to join unions and pay union dues have less control than ever over how their money is spent by union leaders. Labor bosses can now spend those funds on just about any lobbying expense whatsoever and never have to justify it.


Read more at:
Obama's NLRB Plays Santa to Unions

Union leadership is elected by the rank and file, unlike CEO's who aren't, and can spend any amount of money they want on lobbying and political contributions.

This is an attempt to undermine unions by defunding their political arm, and the Obama folks were right to shoot it down.

Here's a really big difference: CEO's spend their money on lobbying, unions spend my money on their lobbying.