Democrats Using NLRB to Tilt the Field



Opinion Editorial

                                                       NLRB tilts field

 
It’s as plain as the nose on your face that the National Labor Relations Board, controlled by Democrats, wants to tilt the union-management playing field further toward unions.
Unions could get not get “card check” (which would make union recognition mandatory upon presentation of cards signed by a majority of workers) passed when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Now their friends at the NLRB are turning to plan B.
The board asked for comment on, among other things, proposals to shorten the �interval between a union’s petition for a representation election and the holding of the vote. Coupled with the board’s recent attempt to keep Boeing Corp. from opening an aircraft assembly plant in South Carolina, the proposals should make the board’s anti-employer slant clear.
Half of all elections are held within 38 days; the arithmetical average is 57 days. Currently, employer challenges to the eligibility of certain workers to vote — often by claims that those workers are ineligible supervisors — are a major source of delay. The board proposes to hear those challenges after the voting instead of before. (Presumably those votes would not be counted if a challenge is upheld.)
Unions clearly do not like to see employers oppose them, but American law has never required employers to roll over and play dead for an organizing drive. The board’s proposal means that employers would have less time to organize opposition. As it is, they often are surprised by an election petition because unions have been effective in keeping their solicitation of support a secret.
Unions win 64 percent of representational elections. There is simply no reason beyond favoritism to change the rules now.

OPED Mary Ellen Was Refering To

Beyond buffoonery

By Boston Herald Editorial Staff                          
Friday, June 10, 2011


The Governor’s Council has now gone beyond mere buffoonery and straight into dysfunctional.
This week they knowingly and admittedly rejected a well qualified candidate for the Parole Board based on nothing more than his reluctance to disclose details of his federal pension and their unabashed jealousy over how much he makes.
John Bocon, a former federal probation officer, was rejected by a 4-3 vote of the Council Wednesday for failing to disclose information that is not required under state ethics laws. In response to questions from councilors he told them his last year’s federal salary was $174,000 so it’s not hard to guess that his pension would be in a similar range — which seems to be what really bothers some councilors.
“I bugs me when I know the guy’s making $200,000 and doesn’t have the decency or courage to tell us what his pension is,” said Christopher Iannella. “Enough is enough,” he told State House News Service.
It’s one thing to reject a nominee for the $90,000 a year post for reasons related to his qualifications or his record of service or a dispute over philosophy, but this is just plain nutty.
The Parole Board was a mess when in the wake of the killing of Woburn Police Officer John Maguire by parolee Dominic Cinelli. Gov. Deval Patrick decided to turn his attention to cleaning house. At the time Bocon got a three-month appointment to fill one of those vacancies. This time he was up for a full five-year term.
The state should be grateful that a man with his experience is willing to serve in what is a difficult and often thankless job.
Councilors Iannella, Mary-Ellen Manning, Marilyn Devaney and Kelly Timilty ought be ashamed of themselves. It’s really time the voters put this gang out of business.

Commentary

The Boston Herald is starting to sound like the Boston Globe.

Obama’s energy hoax By Boston Herald Editorial Staff

There must be something in the White House water.
For decades presidents have been promising to cut oil imports and still nothing much happens. President Barack Obama’s promise of a one-third cut by 2025 is squarely in that unworthy tradition.
The president got his headline but in fact hardly mentioned imports, except to note a small decline in recent recession years. He made no argument that cutting imports would be beneficial in itself, just airy genuflections to the security of supply, a non-problem since nobody can block U.S. access to the world oil market.
The emphasis was on a vast expansion of “clean energy.” The familiar pipe dreams were unfurled again: Bio fuels. Further increases in fuel economy requirements. Electric cars. Flexible-fuel vehicles. High-speed rail. Public transit.
Sure all nifty ideas, their regulatory quirks notwithstanding. And all are costly, many to the point of wiping out any possible benefits. If the president sought increased oil production to hold down prices, he’d do a lot more good.
Here and there a project might be worthwhile. Encouraging use of abundant natural gas as a fuel (for truck fleets, say) with modest subsidies could produce far greater benefits than the current $7,500 subsidy for electric cars.
The president’s increased production scenarios are too rosy. He wants holders of federal oil leases to develop their leases faster and produce more. Producers produce what they want to produce. If forced to develop one lease — assuming there’s oil there — instead of holding it for later, they may idle another well elsewhere.
If the president were serious about increasing domestic production, he would urge exploration of promising no-drill areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and the Atlantic and Pacific continental shelves.
Fat chance.

Commentary

As the Herald just stated we need to cut our alliance with foreign oil producers.DRILL BABY DRILL as the Great Sarah Palin once said