Does Boeing settlement mean NLRB's actions were for naught? Huh? What a dumb question. But the LA Times business blog asks it anyway, revealing its ignorance.
The answer is:
The NLRB is a complete winner here. The settlement was probably similar to what the Board's Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon proposed before he issued the complaint. At that stage, he conducted lengthy discussions with a recalcitrant Boeing who realized it had made a serious mistake, but couldn't back away gracefully. Solomon gave Boeing every chance to settle the case before he issued the complaint, specifically suggesting the kind of negotiated compromise Boeing and the IAM actually reached. So this labor dispute was resolved in the ideal way—the two disputants reached an agreement. Many, many NLRB cases are resolved the same way—it’s called “a non-Board settlement.” Remember, the Board never has a dog in the fight; it’s only goal is to resolve labor disputes, whatever form they may take.
Would such a settlement have happened absent the complaint? Probably not, given Boeing's attitude and the stances taken by those South Carolina representatives who thought they could steamroll the Board by making what are essentially false accusations. The nonsense about South Carolina's right to work law was, and is, prevarication. Right to work laws deal with compulsory union membership; they have nothing to do with the case whatsoever. The charge that the complaint was unprecedented was false; there was Supreme Court precedent. The charge that NLRB was out of control and was making economic decisions, telling Boeing where it had to build its airplanes was false--it was always a law enforcement issue, nothing more and Boeing knew it. The nature of the remedy was somewhat problematic. But the NLRB itself never ruled on it. Claiming that member Becker was leading the charge is patently false. He can’t even talk to the General Counsel about pending cases; it’s against the rules. And, when the Board itself finally gets the case after the judge’s decision, as a member, he’d only be one member of the deciding panel.
The biggest loser, in my opinion, is Darrel Issa. He has proven that he is nothing more than a bully who abuses the power of his office. His committee was not performing legitimate congressional oversight. Under his leadership the committee was interfering with a government prosecution. Since when does Congress get to do that? Never, until now, so far as I'm aware. (Can you imagine a congressman telling a US Attorney what kind of charges he should make against a criminal defendant? That's essentially what Issa was doing.)
If the LA Times doesn't condemn Issa for his blatant misconduct, then it will have abandoned its watchdog status. Despite all the mud thrown at it, the NLRB’s integrity was never in question, but Issa’s integrity certainly is.
To a lesser extent South Carolina governor Nikki Haley and the congressmen from that state should also be publicly censured. Their motive was to cover up their mistake in putting almost $1 billion in South Carolina public money at risk; they knew Boeing had screwed up and became desperate to save the deal. Their extreme anxiety drove them to make outrageous, false and misleading attacks on the NLRB, its statute and its remedial power. For what? To save one company from its own mistake. That is the essence of public corruption. I suggest they took a destructive road here; had they urged Boeing to reach a settlement to save the deal, they could have avoided the entire hullabaloo and retained their integrity. But no… they weren’t capable of good sense.
The phrase “honesty is the best policy” is foreign to Issa and the South Carolina contingent. I wonder why they still hold office.