Since 1935 it's been the job of the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) to enforce the provisions of the landmark National Labor Relations Act (better known as the Wagner Act). The Wagner Act is the New Deal legislation that created the NLRB and governs such things as union elections, unfair labor practices (ULPs) and collective bargaining.
While there have been ideological skirmishes over the years, the NLRB has managed to take its cow to market under the Republican administrations of Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Indeed, it wasn't until George W. Bush became president that things got really ugly. And now, under Barack Obama, things have gotten way uglier.
Since the Taft-Hartley Act (1947), the NLRB is required to have five members on its panel, all of whom are appointed by the president. The panel usually breaks along party lines, typically with a 3-2 split in favor of the White House. In the absence of all five members, the board is still able to conduct business, so long as it has a quorum, which is a minimum three members.
But when there are fewer than three members, the board can't act. In the absence of a quorum, the board can't conduct any important business. It can't come to the aid of workers illegally discharged for union activism; it can't insist that employees be awarded back pay for overtime hours they were cheated out of; and it can't settle ULPs filed during contract negotiations, no matter how egregious. Without a minimum of three members, the board can't do much of anything.
As it stands today the NLRB consists of just three members, the bare minimum. They are Mark Pearce and Craig Becker, both Democrats, and Brian E. Hayes, a Republican. The reason there are only three is because the Republicans in Congress have steadfastly refused to install anyone who remotely resembles a pro-union vote. In fact, Craig Becker himself is a "recess appointee" (appointed by Obama while Congress was out of session), whose term expires at the end of the year.
Given how much the Republicans despise the NLRB -- given how contemptuous they are of the 76-year-old federal institution that was created specifically to guarantee the rights of working people -- what will they do when important votes come up? With this discouraging 2-1 Democratic majority staring them in the face, how will the Republicans respond?
Answer: They will tear down the edifice. It's true. Brian E. Hayes, the lone Republican panel member, has threatened to resign, thus paralyzing the NLRB. They would rather deprive the Board of a quorum -- cripple it, render it powerless -- than allow the Democrats to get a leg up. Not exactly your standard definition of "teamwork."
While no one knows if Hayes will follow through with his threat, President Obama should seize the opportunity, go on national TV, and expose the Republicans for the blatant obstructionists they are. After all, nobody likes a quitter, and Hayes' outrageous threat could only serve to embarrass his party. But, alas, direct confrontation doesn't seem to this president's cup of tea. Which, arguably, is partly why we're in the mess we're in.
David Macaray, a Los Angeles playwright and author (It's Never Been Easy: Essays on Modern Labor), was a former union rep. He can be reached at dmacaray@earthlink.net
Now we see that there are only 3 members sitting on the Nat. Labor R Board when the law call for 5. The reason there are only three is BECAUSE the Republicans in Congress have steadfastly refused to install anyone who remotely resembles a pro-union inclination.”
There must be 3 members for a quorum without which nothing can happen. One of these 3, a Republican member threatens to quit in order to cripple any action. His announced purpose is stop the establishment of a Rule which would require that an employer permit a duly constituted election to install a union within 10 days of pre qualification.
Opponents of the proposed Rule argue that 10 days does not give the employer enough time. However the fact is that no employer is ever taken by surprise. In order to even qualify, on the average it takes the applicant about a month just to get the signatures. Anyone who has ever held an hourly paid job is totally aware of this. The argument is patently specious and absurd ! The fact is that employers will use whatever time they have to throw up all kinds of specious procedural stalls.
Kind of like how the NLRB would rather cripple right-to-work states -- than allow them to get new jobs.
For the rational mind, the answer's easy.
For the purely emotive mind shortsighted enough to buy into deadly jobs being better than safe jobs if some federal body has to compel that safety, the answer is immediate and unbending--yet ironically deficit in empathy, compassion, and humanity in addition to lacking the long view and overall views of how this impacts every worker everywhere.
This isn't a political game, it's about people's lives and livelihoods--and some of us may be selfish enough to want to steal other people's jobs even if it means a loss in rights and safety for all workers, but luckily most people aren't amoral union busters.