Press Releases


Entries in NLRB (184)


Hynes Communication - Shot/Chaser: White House Reveals Regulatory Purposal 


Washington Post

The Obama administration announced 30 plans Thursday to scale back or eliminate hundreds of federal regulations and save American companies billions of dollars in unnecessary costs...


The White House will outline Thursday the plans federal agencies submitted to streamline or eliminate an array of federal rules following a review ordered by President Barack Obama in response to business complaints that regulatory burdens were discouraging hiring...
The Hill

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) may be on the brink of making a major change in national labor policy without resorting to the basic strictures of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), which requires federal agencies to adhere to certain standards when issuing new regulations, including conducting cost benefit assessments and providing the public notice and a full and fair opportunity to comment.... 


The Washington Examiner
Why has private-sector unionization fallen from 35 percent of the work force during World War II to less than 7 percent today? The main reason is that unions raise a firm's labor costs, leaving fewer resources for things like job creation, capital improvements, and research and development.

CEI Daily - Union Activism, Pork, and Sarbanes-Oxley

Union Activism


The National Labor Relations Board surprised many when it threatened to sue Boeing over the building of a new plant in South Caroina.


Policy Analyst Ivan Osorio explains.


"The NLRB's case against Boeing rests on a thin reed. The Board seized on a statement by Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh that an overriding factor in the decision to locate the plant in South Carolina was that the company cannot afford to have a work stoppage 'every three years.' The NLRB cited that statement as supposed evidence that Boeing was trying to retaliate against unionized workers in Washington State. In fact, Albaugh was not referring to any specific union job action."




The USDA lowered its recommended safe cooking temperature for pork from 160 degrees Fahrenheit to 145.


Senior Fellow Greg Conko commends the USDA's change.


"It’s been reasonably well known for some time that cooking whole cuts of meat — including beef, lamb, and even pork — to a lower internal temperature could kill a sufficient portion of harmful bacteria to make the food safe to eat (though ground meats should still be cooked to the higher temperatures because the grinding and mixing process could move substantially more bacteria from the heated outside part of the cut to the inside). And USDA cooking recommendations for beef and lamb have reflected that reality for some time now. But the higher cooking temperature for pork remained, primarily as an artifact of largely bygone concerns about trichinosis — a disease caused by parasitic worms once common in pork and wild game. But due to changing pork industry practices, trichinosis from pork is now fairly rare."






This week in Investor's Business Daily, Associate Director of Technology Studies Ryan Radia and Research Associate Jacqueline Otto explain how Sarbanes-Oxley is affecting tech startups' decisions about whether or not to go public.


"For the sake of today’s entrepreneurs and investors, Congress needs to take a close look at burdens that discourage companies from seeking public offerings. Revisiting the Sarbanes-Oxley Act would be an excellent first step. Section 404, which purports to prevent conflicts of interest, should be scrapped. The section establishes duplicative layers of oversight that are exorbitant to maintain. For instance, companies must assess for fraud, assess the measures to assess for fraud, then assess the assessors!"



NLRB Overreach Comes Under House Scrutiny, ALG Praises House Education & Workforce Committee

May 25, 2011, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today issued a statement praising House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Chairman Rep. Phil Roe for holding a hearing on the NLRB's attempt to block Boeing from opening a new plant in South Carolina on May 26:

"Representative Phil Roe deserves the thanks of the people of South Carolina, and all Americans who oppose a federal agency from trying to tell a company which state it must do business in.  The House Subcommittee on Labor hearing will bring the NLRB's overreach against Boeing under much-needed scrutiny, and ascertain why the NLRB is favoring closed shop union states like Washington over right-to-work states like South Carolina.  The NLRB is willing to kill new jobs unless they are union jobs.  This out-of-control rogue agency needs to be brought to heel."


"NLRB to Boeing: Shut up!" By ALG President Bill Wilson, The Daily Caller, May 13, 2011 at


WFI - Townhall: NLRB Admits Boeing Complaint Applies To Every Business & State

NLRB Admits Boeing Complaint Applies To Every Business & State
Fred Wszolek
May 23, 2011
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 case in question came up when, Boeing, after negotiations with their union in Washington State broke down, decided to build a factory in South Carolina in order to meet demand for their 787 Dreamliner aircraft. Boeing had hoped to stay in Washington, and even opened up negotiations with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) as a show of good faith. When the union demanded a seat on the board and a promise that all facilities would stay in Puget Sound forever, the negotiations broke down and Boeing began to look elsewhere.
Boeing decided to build the new facility in South Carolina, a right-to-work state with more business friendly labor laws. While choosing to build in a new state did not take any Boeing jobs away from Washington, which has actually seen 2,000 jobs created since the new facility in South Carolina was announced; union bosses felt slighted and demanded their friends at President Obama’s labor board intervene on their behalf.
The NLRB complied and almost two years after the new facility was announced, and as construction was concluding and hiring commencing, the regulatory agency told Boeing that they could not extend operations to South Carolina because it was retaliation against Big Labor. This is a blow to South Carolina. It is a swipe to freedom. And it sends a chilling message to any company seeking to relocate in the United States: you are better off moving to Canada or Mexico than creating new jobs in your own country.
But the true damage of this political power play on behalf of Big Labor and against Boeing and South Carolina goes much farther. An NLRB spokesperson recently stated, “The effect would have been the same if the line had been moved to a nonunion facility in any state.”
This is a more straightforward way of saying that the NLRB can tell any business anywhere in our nation and at any time where it can and can not go. This incredible overreach by a little known agency owned by labor bosses seeking “payback” having expended nearly half a billion dollars electing President Obama is simply shocking. The NLRB is clearly saying their complaint against Boeing applies to every company and state in the union.
It also effectively outlaws businesses from moving into any of America’s 22 right-to-work states if a union boss takes issue with their decision.
If unionized companies can’t move into right-to-work states, why would non-unionized companies ever consider moving to unionized states? If this matter is able to set this precedent, America’s economy will suffer as both right-to-work and unionized states will lose jobs, while countries abroad will gain them.
Where did the NLRB get the authority to control commerce in our country? Why isn’t the White House stepping forward to address this gross overreach? President Obama not only agrees with the NLRB’s actions, but has put in place the individuals to create such a system rewarding the union bosses who bankrolled his campaign.
For instance, a Democratically-held Senate in 2010 did not have the stomach to confirm labor radical and union lawyer Craig Becker to the board, yet Obama recess appointed him. And now, Obama has appointed the architect of the Boeing complaint – Lafe Solomon to serve as the regulatory agency’s general counsel.

President Obama clearly believes the NLRB has the power to control American businesses, enabling them to kill jobs as our nation continues to fight through a difficult economic period. By supporting the NLRB’s decision, President Obama has endorsed the idea that bureaucrats in the pocket of Big Labor can make better business decisions than employers. While this may be business as usual for this administration, it is hurting job creators at home and giving greater hope to America’s competitors abroad that they can lure jobs away from our shores.


WFI - WSJ: Another Labor Board Power Play  

Please see the below editorial from the WSJ on the NLRB's continual assault on business. If you take this and consider NLRB member Craig Becker's previous writings on restricting the "mobility of capital" in order to preserve union power, the complete and utter bias of the NLRB towards to unions becomes more and more apparent.

Another Labor Board Power Play

The Latest Attempt To Restrict The Movement Of Business And Capital.


May 23, 2011

The Wall Street Journal

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.

In a May 10 memo to regional staffers, Associate General Counsel Richard Siegel discusses a March case in which the NLRB sided with telecommunications company Embarq Corp. in a dispute over its decision to close a Las Vegas call center and open a bigger facility in Florida. The company refused to explain to its union the rationale for the move. In America, business decisions are made by owners or executives and are rarely subject to compulsory bargaining, while unions confine their concerns to working conditions, pay and benefits.

NLRB Chairwoman Wilma Liebman, a long-time union lawyer, doesn't like that balance. "The Board's task would be easier, and more importantly, the [National Labor Relations] Act's policy of promoting collective bargaining might well be better served, if employers were required to provide unions with requested information about relocation decisions whenever there was a reasonable likelihood that labor-cost concessions might affect the decision," she wrote in her concurrence to the Embarq case.

Translation: Ms. Liebman wants to force far more companies to consult unions when they want to relocate, because unions might theoretically be able to offer concessions to avert a move if they had more information. Never mind that such a rule change would be an unprecedented intrusion into boardrooms, or that unions might use collective bargaining to request reams of data, such as payrolls and tax returns, to increase their negotiating leverage. In a "future case," Ms. Liebman added, "I would be open to modifying" the rule. Wink, nudge.

And voila, a few months later, we get Mr. Siegel's letter: "The General Counsel wishes to examine the concerns raised by Chairman Liebman in Embarq, and determinewhether to propose a new standard in cases involving these kinds of information requests." So one of the NLRB's top lawyers is ordering the troops to scrounge up a case to bring to the accommodating Ms. Liebman and her two fellow Democrats who form a 3-2 majority on the NLRB.

This is getting to be a bad habit. In April, acting general counsel Lafe Solomon challenged Boeing's right to build a new factory in South Carolina, on grounds that such a move would hurt the company's existing union in Washington state. The case is a frontal assault on "right-to-work" states, which let individual workers choose whether to join a union.

As more private workers shun union membership, Big Labor wants government to rig the rules on its behalf. The current NLRB, the most politicized in memory, is obliging with an unprecedented attack on the free movement of business and capital in America. If it succeeds, the result will be a flight of jobs overseas, not more at home. The NLRB is controlled by President Obama's appointees, and the White House silence on their actions amounts to an endorsement.