NLRB Could be Stopped Tomorrow

That is correct. The United States Supreme Court has held that the NLRB can make no decisions on any cases if there is not a minimum of three Board members.

Obama made the mistake of fighting the Republicans on appointments to the Board and insisted upon “stacking” the NLRB with extremely pro-union appointees such as Craig Becker. I am sure he did this at the request of people like Andy Stern of the SEIU.

However, that strategy is about to backfire on the Unions.

There is no way Obama is going to get any further appointments to the NLRB.

Further, and most important, the one Republican appointment holds in his hands the ability to stop the NLRB in its tracks. He can prevent the Boeing case from being decided by an Obama NLRB. He can stop the new rules for “quickie elections” from ever being implemented. He can stop NLRB injunction cases being filed against companies. Yes, this ONE person can stop all this.

How you might ask – by resigning his seat on the NLRB.

That one action brings the NLRB down to just two members. And as we know from the U.S. Supreme Court, two members have no authority to act.

Therefore, tomorrow, this agency can be brought to its knees with the stroke of a pen from one person.

Brian Hayes is the one Republican appointee who has it within his power to shut down the NLRB until next November’s election.

Obtaining an appointment to the NLRB is not easy to do and it will be extremely difficult for Mr. Hayes to walk away from a position he has arguably worked his whole life to obtain.

Lets us all hope that Mr. Hayes is willing to sacrifice his appointment in the hope that his actions will get him reappointed during a time period when the NLRB no longer has such an obvious pro-union tilt.

Obama TOTALLY blew EFCA

Obama TOTALLY blew EFCA.  The Unions spent almost 500 MILLION dollars to elect Democrats to Congress and Obama in order to pass EFCA.  Had it passed, union membership would have doubled in 4 years, contributions to Democrats would have doubled in the 2012 election and the Democrats with Union money would have achieved power that they had not seen since the 1940’s. 

Instead, through sheer incompetence, the Unions got NOTHING for their money.  Pelosi played chicken with Reid and refused to pass EFCA until Reid acted in the Senate.  Obama just sat on the sidelines trying to pass Obamacare. 

The Unions got NOTHING but the shaft.  How can the Union Leader’s go back to their members and say “We blew 500 MILLION dollars on these clowns?”

No wonder the Unions are upset!  I am surprised they turned out the vote for Reid who did NOTHING for them but take their money!  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.  Or as P.T. Barnum said, “there is a sucker born every minute.“ 

No matter how you describe it, the Union Leader’s got taken to the cleaners.  The only swindle that was greater was Bernie Madoff. 

Obama made every dirty deal in the book to pass Obamacare.  Name me ONE deal he cut to pass EFCA!!!

We might want to classify the Union Leader’s under Einstein’s definition as insane, since the Union leader’s keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result!

The Unions will probably not have another chance to ever pass EFCA again.  Call them suckers, insane or just plain foolish; the bottom line is they keep expecting the Democrats to do something other than just take their money. 

Did I mention the Union Leaders may be insane?

Post Election Analysis

Without question, the big looser in this election is the labor union movement. 

Think about it, in 2008 the Unions had in their hands a Democratic majority with a filibuster proof Senate, and the ONE piece of legislation that would have cemented the resurgence of their power, the Employee Free Choice Act, also known as EFCA, was there for the taking.  They spent $500,000,000 to get this sitting President and Democratic Congress elected.

Yet, they could not get a vote on this bill.  The Obama Administration took the Union money and instead of passing EFCA, turned its attention to healthcare.  Instead of passing EFCA in March of 2009, they got bogged down in Obamacare and as a direct result lost the election.

The simple fact is that it could be 20 years before the Unions will ever have the opportunity to pass EFCA again, if ever.  Over the next 20 years, Unions will continue to lose members and union companies will continue to close resulting in fewer members.  Today less than 7% of the private workforce in unionized.  In 20 years, it could be down to 1 to 2 percent. 

Unions spent almost $400,000,000 in this election cycle and got wiped out.  Except for the left coast and the New York and New England areas, where by the shere number of registered Democrats makes it almost impossible for Democrats to lose, there was a wipeout all across the Country of Democrat office holders. 

In addition, the impact of  reapportionment for Congressional seats as a direct result of this election could make Republicans in charge on the House for 10 years. 

Therefore, as I said at the beginning, the real loser in this election was Big Labor.

Think about this one point, had the Unions spent the $900,000,00 in the past four years on their members and organizing instead of electing Democrats that have done nothing for them, maybe they would not have needed EFCA to increase their membership ranks!

Becker Appointment to NLRB is a Game Changer

As those of you who have followed this blog know, on March 4, 2010, I reported that Obama had cut a deal with the Unions who were very upset at how Obama and the Democrats had so bungled the Employee Free Choice Act (“EFCA”), that he would make a recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”).  One more in the many “back room” deals the Obama administration has cut in just over a year in power.

What I predicted came true over the weekend with Mr. Becker’s appointment. 

In essence, what we now have is a three member NLRB board that will not only go out of its way to reverse President Bush’s NLRB decisions, but this is going to be an activist NLRB and it will be creating new law all the time.

Of most concern to management is the idea that companies can be forced to recognize and bargain with “minority” unions.  What does this mean?  Normally, for a union to be certified as a bargaining agent there must be an election and the Union must win by 50% plus 1 of a secret ballot vote.  If the Union wins, it is certified as the bargaining representative.

The “minority” union concept means that the Union no longer has to have a 50% plus 1 secret ballot vote to have a right to sit down and bargain with the Company.  How many employees will be required in order to force a Company to meet this minority union and bargain for a contract? Nobody knows right now.  However, my best guess is that the NLRB would at least require a 30% showing of interest by the entire bargaining unit.  Thus, the 30% showing could do away with the election all together and just like EFCA, the employer would be required to meet and bargain with the Union and avoid an NLRB election.

From a union standpoint, this would even be better for the Unions than EFCA because EFCA was going to require the 50% plus 1 rule as its showing of interest. 

Here is a short list of what I believe is current case law that the Obama NLRB will soon reverse:

  1. Back pay liability limits for salts.
  2. Burden of Proof on how long a salt would have worked.
  3. Lawsuits against Unions are protected.
  4. Voluntary recognition of a Union does not bar decertification of the Union.
  5. Broad definition of who is a supervisor.
  6. Employees who work in a non-union workplace are not entitled to a representative.
  7. Aw will employment status does not convert a permanent replacement into a temporary employee.

This is just a short list but it is clearly a “hit list” that the Unions believe the Obama NLRB will soon reverse.

Can Anyone List “ALL” the “Special Deals” that were cut?

We all know that Obama lied to us all when he promised in the election campaign, “These negotiations will be on C-Span, and so the public will be part of the conversation and we’ll see the choices that are being made.”

One of the biggest problems in the Obama Healthcare bill is that all the special deals that were cut behind closed doors.  In an earlier posting, I pointed out that in fact the very first special deal that was cut on this bill was by Obama himself soon after he was elected, and he did it with the DRUG companies!  https://theohiolaborlawyers.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/obama-in-bed-with-drug-companies/

The simple fact is that there are SO MANY special deals cut to get this monster passed, that it has overwhelmed us all.  In fact, I cannot find a single source that lists “ALL” the special deals that were cut.  What we know right now are just the “big ones.” However, some web sites are misleading and they list items such as the following to be all the special deals:

Cornhusker Kickback:  Perhaps the most well known in the Senate bill, the provision, included at the behest of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), ensures that Nebraska would be the only state to have the full amount of its increased Medicaid costs paid for by the federal government.

The Louisiana Purchase:  The Senate bill provides extra Medicaid funding for any state in which every county has been declared a disaster area.  Because of Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana is the only state that would qualify for the money.  The $300 million provision for Louisiana was slipped in late in the process to persuade Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) to support the health care takeover.

Gator Aid:  At the request of Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fl), the Senate bill includes a formula for protecting certain Medicare Advantage enrollees from billions in cuts.  The formula would only apply to five states, most notably to Florida in which 800,000 of the state’s one million Medicare Advantage users would be exempt from cuts.

New England Handouts:  In addition to the $100 million included in federal Medicaid payments for Nebraska, the bill provides two New England states with even more money Medicaid funding.  According to CBO, the Senate bill now contains about $600 million in extra Medicaid cash to Vermont, and about $500 million in additional money for Medicaid to Massachusetts, making these three states the only to receive such funding.  Despite claims that these cushy extras for a few states would be scaled back, reports indicate that the White House is still making deals so these states can keep the handouts.

The Dodd Clinic:  Section 10502(a) of the bill provides $100 million for construction at an unnamed “health care facility” affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in a state with only one public academic medical and dental school.  Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) later sent a press release saying that he was securing the money for the University of Connecticut, and then Dodd bragged that, “These provisions will bring millions of dollars to the state so that Connecticut’s residents can receive quality, affordable health care.”

Montana Medicare Earmark:  A provision slipped into the Senate bill by Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT), Section 1881A(b)(2), specifically expands Medicare coverage for individuals who reside “in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009.” The area the bill refers to is an asbestos contaminated area near Libby, Montana, for which Sen. Max Baucus has been trying to secure funding for years.

See, http://www.atr.org/full-list-backroom-health-deals-inbr-a4672

But even though this posting thought it was listing ALL the back room deals on this bill, in fact this is just the low hanging fruit. 

What I find most interesting is that not even the Republicans have posted on their web site ALL the special deals cut on this bill!

The way to defeat the Democrats in November is with the truth.  Just list all the special deals that this bill has in it and will fall under its own weight.

If there is anyone out there in blog world who knows of a list of ALL the special deals cut on this bill, please write me and let me know.

The “Fix” is in

The American public is about to get a lesson on how politics in this Country really works.

For those of you who think this vote is going to be close, you are right.

For those of you who think this vote is going to be unknown to the last vote, you are wrong.

The fix is in and this healthcare bill is going to pass.

Here is what happens, the leadership decides who gets a “pass” on the vote to manipulate the public.  Those who vote “no” would in fact vote “yes” except for the pass they get from the Democratic leadership.  Therefore, the fix is in, the votes are counted, it will be close, but they only need to pass it by one or two votes – everything else is fluff.

Those who are given a pass and allowed to vote “no” are in close districts where a “yes” vote could and probably would cost them their seat in Congress.

So the “fix” is in and the vote is going to pass the House.  How do I know this is true you might ask?  Simple.  The Speaker of the House decides when a vote comes to the floor.  She does not bring a bill up for a vote unless she has enough people who have pledged to her that if she needs them to switch votes from no to yes, they will do it to pass the bill.

Add to that the fact that Obama is now going around telling Democrats that his Presidency is at stake on this vote, and you have a lock on a pass.  Remember when Bill Clinton’s tax increase was going to lose by one vote and John Kerry changed his vote from a “no” to a “yes” just so the bill would pass?  Expect the same thing here.

I’m sorry to report it, but the simple fact is that the Democrats care more about their party loyalty than what the American public wants.

Therefore, it is the responsibility of the American public in November to “Remember this Vote” and defeat every Democrat that runs for office because only with a sea change will people say the next time a Speaker of the House tries to pull this fix, that maybe if the American public does not want it, then it should not pass!

Obama in Bed with Drug Companies

Has anyone wondered WHY drug companies and the Unions are spending MILLIONS of dollars in ads for the Obama healthcare bill?  I am sure we know why Unions are doing this, but drug companies?  Why them?

In a great artice I just read it is all laid out.  I am reprinting it here because you need to read this.  I cannot imagine a more important article and it needs to be read by as many Americans as possible.

President has made a mess of health reform

WASHINGTON — A year ago President Obama strolled confidently into the garden of good and evil, bit deeply into the apple and created the mess he and congressional Democrats are in now concerning health insurance reform.

Only a few heady weeks into his presidency, Obama called his first White House health care summit. It was not with those who got him elected, folks from the neighborhoods, the universities, the clinics and officials from hard-pressed state and local health agencies.

Thinking he was still in Chicago, Obama blithely muscled such non-entities aside and settled in with silk-suited brass from the health insurance trade, the hospital conglomerates and the prescription drug business.

With trusted Chicago aides at his elbow, Obama made an amoral deal with the drug manufacturers that has poisoned everything that happened since. He had a debt to pay. The drug makers had donated tens of millions to his Senate and presidential campaigns.

Just after this summit, Obama secretly promised the Rx people that there would be no government jaw-boning with the industry to get lower prices for seniors and others. Obama also promised them there would be no drug importation from Canada and other reliable foreign countries.

This, after then-candidate Sen. Obama promised his administration would enter into talks for lower prices and would bring cheaper but identical products in from Canada. As a U. S. senator and presidential candidate, Obama voted for both.

I am indebted to reporters Tom Hamburger, who broke the story last year about this amazing turnabout, and Paul Blumenthal, who recently added important details. Obama’s 180-degree switch sent a signal to all legislators with close ties to special interests. Obama had campaigned on transparency and chasing lobbyists out of town. Now, it all moved behind closed doors, just as in the ferment over Hillary Clinton’s failed health care proposals 15 years before. The lessons then and now: Don’t trust the people.

On April 15, 2009, there was a secret meeting at the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee at which the drug industry outlined its advertising campaign for health insurance reform. Another part of the $80 billion deal was filling in some, but not all, of the doughnut hole in Medicare Part D.

Seeing that Obama didn’t believe his own campaign rhetoric about transparency, the Senate Finance Committee began its secret talks on what constituted health insurance reform. Max Baucus, D-Mont., is chairman. Charles E. Schumer, D-N. Y., is a prominent member. Baucus emerged on June 20 and called Obama’s unsavory deal with the drug industry “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.” It certainly wasn’t for sick people with limited incomes.

Not long afterward, Senate Democrats got all wobbly about the public option that passed the House. This would be a government-supervised and subsidized insurance program. It would have been the best yardstick by which private health insurance costs could be measured and controlled. On Oct. 28, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Independent, said he would block any bill that contained the public option. Many senators, awash in insurance industry money, shed crocodile tears at the demise of the public option.

Obscured in quarrels over details is the collapse of public trust.

Now, instead of cost control, we are arguing over a symbol: The idea that Democrats need to pass something, even though it won’t produce better health care.

Nothing better symbolizes that special hell into which Obama’s dealings sent health care than a rule being shaped by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-Fairport, and chairwoman of the Rules Committee. She would have the House symbolically approve the Senate bill that would cost New York taxpayers $1 billion a year in added Medicaid costs. Part of the money subsidized payoffs to Vermont, Nebraska and Michigan to buy their senators’ votes last Dec. 24.