CDW Seeks Extension for DOL Rulemaking Comment Period WASHINGTON, D.C. // July 13, 2011 // Today, Coalition for a Democratic Workplace Chairman Geoffrey Burr released the following statement as it filed a request that the Department of Labor extend by 90 days the comment period for its proposed rulemaking, which would create a chilling effect […]

The NLRB has shown yet again today that it’s willing to ambush workers and employees. It’s telling that the Board will not allow proper time for stakeholders to weigh in on the proposed rules, which will ensure employers don’t have sufficient time to educate employees and union bosses can organize without having to offer all the facts.

If the president cares about creating jobs and reviving the economy, he will worry far less about bolstering his union supporters and more about freeing both American businesses and American workers to be as competitive and productive as possible.

Today, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) and major employer representatives called on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to extend the comment period by 90 days on a proposed rule that would have wide-ranging ramifications for as many as six million workplaces.

The election proposals came on top of the NLRB’s unprecedented lawsuit against an employer that moved jobs from a union plant to a nonunion one, and a groundbreaking decision that protected a worker’s right to speak ill of her employer on Facebook.

The NLRB’s complaint against Boeing put the White House back on defense against business after Obama took a series of steps intended to show he could be an ally following brutal battles over healthcare and financial reform.

The National Labor Relations Board dodged a bullet last week in the formal hearing about its labor-law violation complaint against Boeing Co., an initial step in a hearing that is expected to last through the summer.

The board’s proposed rule changes would speed up union votes so that voters have less time to learn about the consequence of unionization, hand out personal information so that union activists can find workers at their homes, and institute electronic voting so that labor bosses don’t have to worry about those pesky “private ballot” protections anymore.

The board is now pushing through rules that eliminate key checks and balances from the process by which a workplace can be unionized — in the name of speeding things up, it’s upending decades of precedent to make it easier for unions to force themselves on workers, who will have less information.

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace (CDW) denounced the White House’s apparent strategy on behalf of its benefactors in Big Labor that “if you can’t win fairly, rig the rules of the game.”

On behalf of millions of employers, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace sent a letter supporting H.R.1976, the Job Protection Act.

… if “political influence” did not prompt the agency’s overreaching action against Boeing, the NLRB’s best defense is to show what did. Maybe full disclosure could even shed more light on the agency’s far-fetched case that Boeing, by stating the obvious about a business decision, broke the law.

U.S. Rep. Tim Scott said he asked President Barack Obama on Wednesday about intervening in the National Labor Relations Board’s current dispute with the way Boeing Co. decided to build a new plant in the Lowcountry.

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace sent a letter to Senators Alexander, Graham, and DeMint supporting S. 964, the Job Protection Act

The National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) decision to issue a complaint regarding the Boeing facility in South Carolina is a poorly veiled act of revenge against a company that refused to let Big Labor bosses decide its future. As seemingly ridiculous and unbelievable as the attack on the part of the U.S. Government against an American corporation seeking to create jobs at home is, the consequences that this precedent sets for businesses and their right to work is downright dangerous.

The Obama-era National Labor Relations Board has tilted so heavily toward union interests that companies might be forgiven for thinking the process is rigged against them. A recent missive from one of the agency’s top lawyers shows why.

The NLRB, controlled by Obama administration appointees, has alleged that Boeing Co. retaliated against union workers in Washington state by adding a nonunion plant in South Carolina to assemble additional 787 Dreamliner planes. The agency is trying to force the company to move the work to Washington, where Dreamliners are already made; Boeing says the allegations are groundless.

Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore write, “The Obama administration’s National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint last month against Boeing to block production of the company’s 787 Dreamliner at a new assembly plant in South Carolina—a “right to-work” state with a law against compulsory union membership. If the NLRB has its way, Dreamliner assembly will return to Washington, a union-shop state, along with more than 1,000 jobs.”

By suing Arizona for passing a law that has yet to be enforced in any way, the National Labor Relations Board is showing whose interests matter most in Washington, D.C., these days. It isn’t the interests of Arizona workers that matter with this extraordinary lawsuit. And it certainly is not the best interests of employers, which the NLRB is using as cover to justify its lawsuit.

H.L. Mencken defined puritanism as the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy. The National Labor Relations Board is haunted by the fear that a company somewhere might be creating jobs with a nonunionized workforce.