National Labor Relations Act

  • September 5, 2011
    Guest Post

    by Marion G. Crain, the Wiley B. Rutledge Professor of Law and Director, Center for the Interdisciplinary Study of Work & Social Capital, at the Washington University School of Law


    Labor Day celebrates the historical contributions of the American labor movement to the lives of millions of working people. Today, however,unions are under siege. In the public sector, governors seeking to slash budgets are deauthorizing state labor laws that govern the organizing and bargaining rights of state employees. In the private sector, both the federal legislation that supports union action and the administrative body that enforces the law (the National Labor Relations Act and the National Labor Relations Board, respectively) are under attack. Union density is on a dramatic downswing. Are unions passé?

    Unions formed to challenge the dramatic wealth inequality between business owners and workers that characterized the nineteenth century social condition.  Most working families -- children, as well as adults -- labored under oppressive and dangerous conditions: seven days and sixty-plus hours per week, for pennies an hour, in workplaces with overtly dangerous conditions (the open flames in coal mines, for example, led to frequent explosions that maimed and killed many miners). Unions fought to change these conditions: to raise wages, to reduce hours, to enhance worker safety on the job. As they matured, unions partnered with the civil rights movement to battle entrenched racial segregation and discrimination in employment. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, a staunch union advocate, espoused a vision of racial equality that was premised on a call for economic justice. Indeed, King’s assassination occurred while he was in Memphis supporting a sanitation workers’ strike.

    Today, an array of statutes protects the vast majority of workers against such abuses.  Unions played a key role in obtaining such protections, and in defending them against political challengers. They raised workers’ expectations and encouraged them to demand to be treated with dignity, lobbied for legislation that would improve the standard of living for all workers, and litigate on behalf of workers for the most worker friendly interpretations of the law. The Fair Labor Standards Act (establishing a minimum wage and the right to overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per week), the Occupational Safety and Health Act (establishing standards for safe workplaces), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin and religion), and the Family and Medical Leave Act (offering job protection for unpaid medical and family-care-related leave) are among the many legislative achievements that would not exist without the advocacy of labor unions. 

    As valuable as it may be, the individual rights model outlined above leaves economic issues like living wages, job security, health insurance and pension benefits to individual negotiation. But individual workers are relatively powerless to negotiate with corporate employers who hold the purse-strings to desperately needed jobs, and many workers willingly sacrifice anything to get and keep a job. Unions, however, are able to capitalize on the collective strength of the group to negotiate collective bargaining agreements that guarantee job security and establishbenefit packages that include health insurance, pension coverage, vacation pay, and paid family leave. Once obtained, these important benefits are often extended across entire industries or sectors by employers competing to attract the best workers. Further, most workers lack the knowledge of their legal rights and the resources to challenge violations of rights guaranteed in individual rights statutes. Unions thus play an important role as watchdogs for workers’ rights, and are the most effective vehicle for extending those rights beyond the minimum floor prescribed by employment legislation.

    Thus, labor unions are widely credited with creating and sustaining a strong middle class in America. Autoworkers, steelworkers, coalminers, nurses, teachers, and many others enjoy a middle-class standard of living because of their collectively-bargained wage and benefit packages. 

  • August 30, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    As conservative lawmakers and right-wing activists keep churning out attacks against the efforts of the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) to enforce federal labor law, The New York Times talked with outgoing chairwoman Wilma Liebman about the origins of some of the Right’s vitriol.

    Liebman (pictured) tells the newspaper that attacks against the Board, which is charged with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), tend to be cyclical – depending on which political party is in power (the NLRB is an independent federal agency, but the president appoints members to the five-member board). She adds, however, that she believes the NLRA, enacted during the New Deal has never been fully accepted by many people. The NLRA, as Liebman points out, was intended to ensure that workers have the right to engage in collective bargaining and other actions to protect their rights against increasingly powerful corporations. Not surprisingly, the article includes comments from U.S. Chamber of Commerce deriding actions by the Board to safeguard workers’ rights. Recently the NLRB drew consternation from business groups when it ordered private employers to post information about workers’ rights to bargain collectively and form unions.

    Liebman defends collective bargaining as a major reason for the creation of the nation’s middle class, and as a tool to strengthen the economy.

    “If you increase workers’ purchasing power, that can create a stronger, more substantial economy,” she said.

  • August 15, 2011

    by Nicole Flatow

    Earlier this month, a group of 34 legal and labor policy experts urged Rep. Darrell Issa not to intervene any further in an ongoing legal proceeding on whether Boeing violated federal labor law, warning that subpoenaing documents from an active case would threaten the independence of the National Labor Relations Board.

    “We believe that this document request, combined with recent statements noting the desire to possibly ‘eliminate the NLRB,’  may well cross the line delineated by the courts,” they cautioned in a letter.

    But Issa’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee went forward with a sweeping subpoena anyway, requiring the NLRB to submit all documents related to the Boeing case by this Friday.

    Now, several House Democrats have sent their own letter accusing Issa of overstepping his bounds to serve corporate interests, and calling on him to drop the subpoena, The Huffington Post reports.

  • August 9, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has moved ahead with his effort to force the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to release even more documents regarding its case charging Boeing with violating federal labor law. Yesterday, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Issa, issued a sweeping subpoena for all documents related to the Boeing case, which is now before an administrative law judge.

    Since lodging its complaint that Boeing moved production of its Dreamliner jet from its plant in Washington State to South Carolina in retaliation against workers in Washington for conducting strikes, the NLRB has come under withering attacks from lawmakers in Congress and right-wing activists. Some have suggested stripping the agency of its funding, or shuttering it, while others have pushed legislation to gut the agency’s ability to uphold provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

    Responding to the Committee’s action, Acting NLRB General Counsel Lafe Solomon said in a press statement, “To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time since 1940 that the National Labor Relations board has been the subject of a Congressional subpoena. I am disappointed and surprised by this development. For months, my staff and I have diligently tried to satisfy the Committee’s desire for information while also preserving the integrity of our process and the rights of the parties in a case being actively litigated.”

    The NLRB has also already released reams of material relating to the case, including posting its complaint against Boeing, along with other material, on its website.

    Issa (pictured), perhaps not surprisingly, was not moved by a recent letter from more than 30 legal and labor policy experts, urging the Committee to refrain from interfering with the case.

    “In our view,” the experts’ letter states in part, “independent federal law enforcers must be protected from undue interference by Congress. If the Committee continues to inappropriately interfere with this process, these serious charges of illegal behavior may never be properly adjudicated, thereby denying both parties the opportunity to tell their full story. Such a result would jeopardize our long held democratic principles and respect for the rule of law.”

    Earlier this summer, ACS hosted a teleconference briefing on the Boeing case. The call featured law professors James J. Brudney and Catherine Fisk, both of whom signed the letter submitted to Issa. Audio of the call is available here.  

    ACS Executive Director Caroline Fredrickson has also spoken out on the lawmakers’ actions surrounding the Boeing case. Fredrickson told Free Speech Radio News, “You’ve got a group of Republicans on the Hill who are trying to intimidate the National Labor Relations Board to make the decision based on what they want rather than doing the job they were appointed to do, which is to weigh the facts, look at the law, and figure out who is right in the particular case.”

    Democratic House members blasted Issa’s subpoena of the NLRB, warning that it appears to be part of a campaign to influence the legal proceeding against Boeing.  

    Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), said the subpoena “threatens the integrity of an ongoing trial and the constitutional due process rights of the private parties involved in that trial. It ignores pleas from members of Congress and legal experts to be mindful of the line between proper oversight of an agency and improper interference with its proceedings. It is issued in the midst of troubling Republican attacks on the National Labor Relations Board and the workers’ rights that it enforces.”

    Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), a ranking member on the Oversight Committee, in a press release called Issa’s subpoena “part of a pattern to attack the due process rights of union employees for the obvious benefit of a private party – Boeing. It is unacceptable that workers’ right to legal recourse would be subverted by a Congressional action.”

  • July 21, 2011

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The Right’s ongoing assault on workers’ rights is not contained to states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio. As noted on ACSblog on numerous occasions, lawmakers in Congress, such as Reps. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.) and Tom Price (R-Ga.), and Sen. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), have been working feverishly to undercut the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), primarily because of the independent agency’s complaint that the aerospace company Boeing has violated federal law by moving production of its Dreamliner jet from Washington state to South Carolina. The NLRB’s complaint cites public comments from top Boeing officials that the move was made to avoid any potential strikes by employees in Washington. The NLRB, charged with enforcing the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), says it is illegal to retaliate against workers for engaging in lawful conduct.

    But while that complaint is being heard by an administrative law judge, the Right, beholden to large corporate interests, has waged a campaign to scuttle the NLRB’s efforts to function.

    Now Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) is pushing a bill in the House that would strip the NLRB of its authority to enforce provisions the NLRA intended to protect workers from corporate malfeasance.

    Specifically Rep. Scott’s bill, which is being considered today by the House Education and Workforce Committee, would bar the NLRB from requiring corporations to return work to a particular factory or job site if it were determined that the corporations moved those jobs in retaliation against workers who engage in lawful activity, like striking.

    If the bill were to become law it would, of course, scuttle the case that is currently proceeding against Boeing Corp., and hobble the NLRB’s efforts to protect millions of other workers nationwide from corporations that strive to limit their ability to bargain for fair wages and benefits.

    It’s not surprising that the corporate lobbyists, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are behind the Right’s relentless efforts to trash the NLRB. In a press release from Rep. John Kline, chairman of the Education & Workforce Committee, trumpeting today’s consideration of the NLRB-busting bill, the Chamber urges cutting the agency’s ability to enforce federal labor law in order to protect investment in “U.S. facilities.”

    In a guest post for ACSblog, Professor Ellen Dannin slams the “wild claims” that have been lobbed at the NLRB’s complaint against Boeing. “If you listened to Congress’ version of the events,” Dannin writes, “you would think that the NLRB has become the major threat to the economic life of this country.”

    “Of course,” Dannin continues, “none of this is true. In fact, it is just Plane Nonsense.”