Skip to main content

View Diary: Chamber of Commerce advertising against labor regulations and labor law enforcement (38 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Protecting Corporate Criminals From the Law (0+ / 0-)

    While some would say that the last 3 years (or 30) has proven that there is little need for such a bill (Protecting Corporate Criminals from the Law), it would appear that some final remnants of the rule of law have not yet been extinguished.  

    So the people who have forgotten the meaning of "enough" want .... more special treatment in for form of a blanket exemption from law enforcement and this time, they want it written into the United States Code.  

    You can read the actual complaint here:
     National Labor Relations Board Complaint
    Case 19-CA-32431

    Media Matters has a good intro in its rebutal of the latest FOX FauxNews. treatment of the case and some introduction to the long line of cases that this complaint relies on.

    This situation is analogous in some ways to firing an employee in a protected class.  
    You can fire them.  You just can't fire them for a prohibited reason (their race or gender or age for instance.)  

    The Unionized Employees are not saying that Boeing can't locate its plants anywhere they want, just that they cannot do so to retailiate against the Unionized Employees for their lawful conduct as a collective bargaining unit or to chill the creation or activives of unions in their businesses.

    To put it into perspective, the collective bargaining unit in question has gone out on strike 5 times in 36 years.  

    Since 1975, during the course of the parties' collective-bargaining relationship, the IAM engaged in strikes in 1977, 1989, 1995, 2005, and 2008.

    Both before and after the decision to locate the new DreamLiner production plant in SC, Boeing made a number of written statements indicating that their decision would be and was based on the strike activities of the union.

    As stated in the NLRB compliant (linked above) (Boeing is the "Respondent"):

    On or about the dates and by the manner noted below, Respondent made coercive statements to its employees that it would remove or had removed work from the Unit because employees had struck and Respondent threatened or impliedly threatened that the Unit would lose additional work in the event of future strikes:

    (a) October 21, 2009, by McNerney in a quarterly earnings conference call that was posted on Boeing's intranet website for all employees and reported in the Seattle Post Intelligencer Aerospace News and quoted in the Seattle Times, made an extended statement regarding "diversifying [Respondent's] labor pool and labor relationship," and moving the 787 Dreamliner work to South Carolina due to "strikes happening every three to four years in Puget Sound."


    (various other examples follow in the complaint)

    The interpretation of the law being relied on dates back to at least 1965, when the US Supreme Court in Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Manufacturing Co.  said:

    But it is only when the interference with § 7 rights outweighs the business justification for the employer's action that § 8(a)(1) is violated. ...

    Whatever may be the limits of § 8(a)(1), some employer decisions are so peculiarly matters of management prerogative that they would never constitute violations of § 8(a)(1), whether or not they involved sound business judgment, unless they also violated § 8(a)(3). Thus, it is not questioned in this case that an employer has the right to terminate his business, whatever the impact of such action on concerted activities, if the decision to close is motivated by other than discriminatory reasons. [Footnote 10] But such action, if discriminatorily motivated, is encompassed within the literal language of § 8(a)(3). We therefore deal with the Darlington closing under that section.
    One of the purposes of the Labor Relations Act is to prohibit the discriminatory use of economic weapons in an effort to obtain future benefits. The discriminatory lockout designed to destroy a union, like a "runaway shop," is a lever which has been used to discourage collective employee activities ...

    We are not presented here with the case of a "runaway shop," [Footnote 16] whereby Darlington would transfer its

    Page 380 U. S. 273

    work to another plant or open a new plant in another locality to replace its closed plant. [Footnote 17] Nor are we concerned with a shutdown where the employees, by renouncing the union, could cause the plant to reopen. [Footnote 18] Such cases would involve discriminatory employer action for the purpose of obtaining some benefit in the future from the employees in the future. [Footnote 19]

    The closing of an entire business, even though discriminatory, ends the employer-employee relationship; the force of such a closing is entirely spent as to that business when termination of the enterprise takes place. On the other hand, a discriminatory partial closing may have

    Page 380 U. S. 275

    repercussions on what remains of the business, affording employer leverage for discouraging the free exercise of § 7 rights among remaining employees of much the same kind as that found to exist in the "runaway shop" and "temporary closing" cases.

    Page 380 U. S. 272

    By analogy to those cases involving a continuing enterprise, we are constrained to hold, in disagreement with the Court of Appeals, that a partial closing is an unfair labor practice under § 8(a)(3) if motivated by a purpose to chill unionism in any of the remaining plants of the single employer and if the employer may reasonably have foreseen that such closing would likely have that effect.


    So, the bill in question, HR 2587 would essentially gut the enforcement of established labor law in place for over 45 years, regardless of how blatant or outrageous the violation of that law.  

    Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160) is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: ‘‘: Provided further, That the Board shall have no power to order an employer (or seek an order against an employer) to restore or reinstate any work, product, production line, or equipment, to rescind any relocation, transfer, subcontracting, outsourcing, or other change regarding the location, entity, or employer who shall be engaged in production or other business operations, or to require any employer to make an initial or additional investment at a particular plant, facility, or location’’.

    It should be called Protecting Outsourcing Corporations from Government Enforcement of the Law.

    Here's the thing.  If no 'person' is above the law and all you huge bloody corporations are so deep into your Pinocchio-Syndrome that you want to be treated as a 'real person', welcome to the United States of America.  The law applies to you too.  

    Someone in a very expensive suit is at the front door and says he wants to foreclose on our democracy. Where should I tell him he can put his robosigning pen?

    by Into The Woods on Wed Sep 14, 2011 at 01:25:18 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site