Senator threatened ‘guns-a-blazing’ if NLRB moved on Boeing
GOP lawmakers
have launched
nearly 50 attacks
on the NLRB this
year alone
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) threatened to
come out with “full guns a-blazing”
against the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB) if NLRB acting General
Counsel Lafe Solomon issued a com-
plaint against the Boeing Co., which is
accused of moving production away
from its state of Washington facility in
retaliation for the workers exercising
their right to strike. The threat was made
nine days before the NLRB issued the
complaint April 20.
Graham’s threats were revealed in
Solomon’s notes on the phone call that
The Hill newspaper obtained through
the Freedom of Information Act. In
those notes Solomon writes:
“He said that if a complaint was
filed, it will be very, very, nasty… He
said that if a complaint was issued he
was going ‘full guns a-blazing.’ ”
Since the complaint was issued, Re-
publican lawmakers have threatened to
cut the NLRB’s funding, block nomina-
tions to the board, and impose new laws
to curtail its authority.
Solomon’s notes on the case also re-
veal that Boeing General Counsel Mike
Luttig threatened to bring congressional
pressure if the NLRB issued a com-
plaint.
“He told me … he would go to the
Hill to prevent me from litigating the
case… I said that I had the CEO on tape
saying that the move to SC was not be-
cause of economics but because of the
Machinists strike. I said I had a triable
case and that I would do whatever I
thought was right under the NLRA [Na-
tional Labor Relations Act].”
In a letter released Nov. 9 about Gra-
ham’s and Boeing’s threats, Rep. Elijah
Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking De-
mocrat on the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee said:
“No corporation should be able to
discriminate against American workers
and then avoid accountability for its ac-
tions by using its political influence in
Congress to seek to undermine the rule
of law. These new documents raise seri-
ous concerns that this may be exactly
what happened in this case.”
In 2011 alone, Republicans have
launched nearly 50 attacks on the
NLRB and the NLRA.
“They’ve introduced 24 bills and
amendments; approved one continuing
resolution; held eight hearings; and tied
up the agency with eight threatening let-
ters, four official requests for docu-
ments, and one subpoena — none of
which created a single job,” said Zoe
Bridges-Curry of American Rights at
Work, a nonprofit advocacy organiza-
tion promoting the freedom of workers
to organize unions and bargain collec-
tively with employers. “So it’s clear that
their ultimate aim is to eliminate the
rights and protections that ensure the 99
percent a fair shake in the workplace.”
“The assaults on workers’ rights
come at a time when most Americans
say jobs are the nation’s No. 1 priority,”
the AFL-CIO said.
Currently, Republicans who control
the U.S. House are trying to defund the
NLRB and ban the Board from acting
in a half dozen different fields of labor
relations.
House Labor Appropriations Sub-
committee Chairman Denny Rehberg
(R-Mont.) inserted the bans over the
protests of the panel’s top Democrat,
Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) She defended
the NLRB and workers. And she said
Rehberg isn’t even letting other legisla-
tors work on the measure, making them
“bystanders” to his ideology.
The NLRB riders that Rehberg in-
serted would:
• Reaffirm federal labor law’s 76-
year-old ban on covering farmworkers
— and extend it to “employees engaged
in the maintenance and operation of
ditches, canals, reservoirs, and water-
ways” where 95 percent of the water
goes for farms.
• Ban the NLRB’s proposal to force
more disclosure by — and enforce rules
on — what Rehberg calls “persuaders”
and labor calls union-busters.
• Ban money to approve creation of
“micro-unions,” an idea floated by sev-
eral labor law professors.
• Ban the board from issuing any de-
cision to change the Bush-era standard
for secret-ballot elections.
• Ban “electronic, remote or absen-
tee voting” in union representation elec-
tions, forcing all the votes to be cast on-
site. Putting all voting onsite gives
employers another shot at taking names
of union supporters for later discipline,
harassment or firing.
• Ban money for the NLRB’s pro-
posal to streamline union recognition
election processes, including consoli-
dating all the complaints in one hearing.
• Ban the notice, which the NLRB
has already promulgated, telling em-
ployers they must put up agency-pro-
vided free posters informing workers of
their rights to join — or not join —
unions. The NLRB has delayed final
implementation of that rule until Jan.
31.
• Exempt “small businesses” from
labor law coverage. DeLauro pointed
out that under the Small Business Ad-
ministration’s definition of “small busi-
ness,” which Rehberg adopted, a firm
could have up to 1,000 workers and be
exempt.
Republicans also have proposed a 17
percent cut — $49 million — in the
Take your message
further, occupiers
To The Editor:
The Occupy Portland movement
did a great job of drawing our attention
to the social inequities resulting from
corruption, double standards, and
abuse of power in American politics
and commerce. But with the appear-
ance of drug dealers, arsonists, and
sanitation issues, the occupation of
public-owned spaces should end. We
need to take the original positive mes-
sage further in our individual day-to-
day thoughts, social exchanges, and
actions. Every day we need to reaffirm
why we think what we think, with a fo-
cus on the 2012 elections.
With our consumer dollars we
should help grow small, locally owned
— therefore locally accountable —
businesses. Large corporations may
employ thousands, but they hold those
jobs hostage in return for corporate
welfare in the form of tax breaks and/or
subsidies. Government and corpora-
tions should be accountable to us, not
vice versa. And with the upcoming
election cycle, let’s do our best to re-
mind government that it’s supposed to
govern for us, not over us.
Steve Weaser
NALC Branch 82
Portland
‘Occupiers’ show
true colors
To The Editor:
Labor’s support of the Occupy Port-
land demonstration has ultimately been
revealed as knee-jerk and misguided at
best. Whereas the “movement” spirited
itself as representing “the 99%” and
highly critical of big business, it has
now shown its true colors and is demon-
strating against the Keystone pipeline
project — a critical construction project
for America and her workers. Perhaps
those who oppose Keystone consider
the highly-skilled plumbers, pipefitters,
NOVEMBER 18, 2011
NORTHWEST LABOR PRESS
NLRB budget.
“If these documents represent the
position Chairman Rehberg intends to
take into negotiations with the Senate,
it looks like we’re in for a long, difficult
process,” DeLauro commented. “The
Rehberg draft injects a whole host of
new, contentious legislative issues into
the process, most of them quite extrane-
ous to the task at hand.
While Rehberg’s draft bill, with all
its anti-worker provisions, has yet to get
through the GOP-run House Appropria-
tions Committee, the Democratic-run
Senate Appropriations panel approved
its money bill — including NLRB
funds — last month.
(Editor’s Note: Mike Hall of the
AFL-CIO NOW News Blog and Press
Associates Inc. contributed to this re-
port.)
O PEN
F ORUM
and pipeliners who will work on the
pipeline as part of the 1%. Tell that to
the unemployed on our hiring list.
Ron Murray
UA Local 290 (Retired)
Portland
End Bush tax cuts
Statement by AFL-CIO President
Richard Trumka on Republican pro-
posal to permanently extend Bush tax
cuts.
“On Nov. 9, Republicans on the so-
called “Super Committee” proposed
lowering tax rates for the richest Amer-
icans while cutting hundreds of billions
of dollars in Social Security and
Medicare benefits that middle class
Americans depend on. This is Robin
Hood in reverse: class warfare against
the American middle class on behalf of
the top 1 percent.
“You can’t use budget deficits as an
excuse to cut middle class benefits one
minute, and the next minute propose
making the deficit worse by lowering
tax rates for rich people. After all, Bush
tax cuts are the number one reason why
projected deficits are so high over the
next 10 years. If we want to bring down
the federal deficit, we have to start by
letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy
expire on schedule. Haven’t Republi-
cans noticed that Americans from every
walk of life are fed up with this con-
stant catering to the demands of the 1
percent? This is the same kind of tone-
deaf overreaching on behalf of the 1
percent that voters in Ohio overwhelm-
ingly rejected yesterday. Democrats on
the Super Committee should firmly
come out against this proposal and
stand with the 99 percent of Americans
who are demanding change.”
PAGE 7