The National Labor Relations Board has a responsibility to remain neutral between unions and employers. But actions show that their plan is to increase union power to the detriment of legitimate management and employee interests including the interests of the country’s principal job creators, small business. Stacked with former union cronies, the NLRB has made an effort to disguise their agenda.
While it has been hard to do with the Boeing complaint, the NLRB keeps trying. First, its Acting General Counsel claimed his Boeing complaint was “routine” and “not unprecedented.” Two former NLRB Chairmen, William Gould, a Democrat, and Peter Schaumber, a Republican, firmly disagreed. Now, the NLRB is claiming that it would have taken the same action if Boeing’s new plant had been opened in any state, not just a right-to-work state. Again, a statement intentionally meant to mislead.
Traditionally, the NLRB files complaints against employers if a union files a charge. The likelihood that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers would have filed a complaint if Boeing had moved to Illinois, New York or another more heavily unionized state seems unlikely.
In the end, it’s all about money. Workers’ union dues keep Big Labor in the expensive life style it is accustomed to. While right-to-work states do not outlaw unionization, unions do little organizing there because right-to-work laws protect workers from being forced into union membership. Simply said, these laws diminish union boss power and their access to money.
Further, right-to-work states are more prosperous economically. Consider these facts:
- Unemployment is lower in right-to-work states and home ownership is higher.
- Right-to-work states produce more highly-educated workers than forced unionization states, and it comes as no surprise that the overwhelming majority of young professionals – 94.3% to be exact, choose to live in right-to-work states.
- Additionally, in states without forced unionization, employers are more capable of providing health insurance to their employees – something forced unionization states have struggled to do. In the decade between 1999-2009, the number of people covered by any form of private health insurance decreased by 5.7% in forced-unionization states, but in right-to-work states, that number actually increased one percent.
- The freedom provided by right-to-work states affects the stability of its businesses; therefore, it secures the stability of benefits for workers.
This proves why businesses are looking to locate in right-to-work states rather than shipping jobs overseas. In tough economic times, the NLRB should not be pursuing job-killing policies in an effort to advance a narrow ideological agenda. The NLRB is seeking to camouflage the Boeing complaint for what it is: an attack on right-to-work states and right-to-work laws. Don’t be fooled.