The Hill reported yesterday that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has struck down the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rule that would have shortened the time frame between a union approaching a company to unionize and the vote of unionization. The lawsuit against the rule was supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace.
The judge struck down the rule based n the fact that the NLRB only had two members when it passed the rule–three are needed to form a quorum.
The article reports:
Trade associations praised the court ruling Monday.
“In their rush to conclude their rulemaking before the end of Board Member Becker’s recess appointment, the board took shortcuts in the process, and the court rightly ruled that the rule is invalid because the board lacked the necessary quorum to conduct business,” said David French, senior vice president for government relations for the National Retail Federation (NRF), in a statement.
The problem with the law was that it did not give companies enough time to explain to employees what the downside of unionization would be. The other thing to note here is that the rule was struck down because of the way it was passed–not on the merits of the rule. That means that if the composition of the NLRB changes in the future so that it is entirely pro-union, this rule will probably go into effect. That is another reason to consider carefully who you vote for in November–the President appoints the members of the NLRB.
Investors.com posted an editorial yesterday about the China currency bill the Senate is planning to introduce this week. The National Retail Federation (NRF) has stated their opinion that passage of the bill will cost American jobs–not create them.
Today’s Wall Street Journal (not linked–subscribers only) posted an editorial titled, “The Obama-Romney Tariff.” The article at the Wall Street Journal describes the bill as “the most dangerous trade legislation in many years.”
The article at the Wall Street Journal reports:
The legislation is now coming to the floor because Senate Democrats want protectionist political cover against unions in return for voting on the free-trade pacts with Columbia, Panama and Korea that President Obama finally sent to Congress yesterday. But what is cynical posturing in Washington may look more threatening to the rest of the world, and once trade wars start they can be hard to stop.
We do not trade with China on an even level–they use slave labor and they manipulate their currency to give themselves an advantage. The Chinese are not fair trading partners. I understand that, and I would like to see that change. However, this may not be the time to attempt that change. We need to clean up the internal downward forces on the American economy so that we approach this problem from a position of strength rather than a position of weakness. The answers to America’s economic problems are internal–they are not external. This currency bill is not Smoot-Hawley, but unfortunately, it may have a similar result.