Politicizing A Government Agency

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about some recent actions by the National Labor Relations Board.

The article reports:

The top federal labor arbiter smacked down a controversial Biden appointee’s move to dismiss a worker’s complaint against union leaders.

National Labor Relations Board acting general counsel Peter Ohr attempted to withdraw the agency’s support for a Texas nurse who accused union and company officials of conspiring against workers. Three members of the five-member NLRB, which enforces federal labor law, said the Biden appointee ignored “significant legal issues” the case presented.

“This case presents significant legal issues regarding the duty of fair representation and the appropriate framework for resolving allegations that a union breached that duty,” the board wrote in its decision. “This case presents the Board with an opportunity to examine these issues, based on a fully briefed and litigated record, and to provide guidance to employees and unions alike. Accordingly, after careful consideration, we conclude that the Acting General Counsel’s motion should be denied.”

The move comes as pressure ratchets up on Ohr, who is facing questions about the legitimacy of his appointment. Several workers have filed appeals in the wake of the Biden administration’s firing of two Trump-era labor prosecutors whose terms had yet to expire. These legal challenges could complicate Ohr’s decision to shift the board to be more favorable to union leadership, as he has withdrawn or reversed agency guidances put in place by his ousted predecessor.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is supposed to be apolitical.

On February 16th, The Hill reported:

On inauguration day, President Biden performed an act unprecedented in the history of the presidency. He fired the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. Never in the 73 year history of the NLRB general counsel’s office had a general counsel been fired by the president.

…On every such occasion in the past, the incumbent general counsel has been allowed to serve out his or her term, as required by law. Only President Truman’s requested resignation of the general counsel that he himself appointed even comes close to the current situation.

The article at The Washington Free Beacon continues:

Texas-based nurse Marissa Zamora accused National Nurses United leadership of striking a deal in secret with hospital management contrary to worker interests. Zamora drew backlash when she tried to organize her fellow nurses to oust the union leaders. Her complaint said that hospital management and union leaders tore down her fliers and denied her “access to post material on protected bulletin boards, where her material would be shielded from vandalism.”

Former NLRB general counsel Peter Robb signaled his support for the challenge to the union’s authority. Zamora’s attorneys argue that Ohr did not have the authority to dismiss the case because his appointment was unlawful.

“The Acting General Counsel has no authority to unilaterally seek dismissal of Ms. Zamora’s exceptions,” Zamora’s response to Ohr’s dismissal states. “Finally, the Acting General Counsel had no authority to file the Motion because: (1) the removal of General Counsel Robb was unlawful; and (2) Acting General Counsel Ohr was unlawfully appointed.”

In response to a request for comment, Ohr said, “I respect but am disappointed with the Board’s majority decision, and we will wait for the Board’s ruling on the merit of the case.”

In a statement, National Nurses United legal counsel Micah Berul said, “The administrative law judge already found that the union did not violate the law. We agree with Chairperson McFerran that the General Counsel should not be required to continue to pursue this case when he has made a determination that it is not in the public interest to do so.” Board chairwoman Lauren McFerran dissented from the ruling.

Ohr’s appointment is generating controversy as President Biden’s violation of decades of precedent sparks legal challenges, according to National Right to Work Foundation president Mark Mix.

The President should have a right to choose his own people for his cabinet and other staff positions. However, the NLRB is not supposed to be a political organization. It is not supposed to be either pro-union or anti-union. Unfortunately the Biden administration has changed that.

Why Congressional Investigations Can Take A Long Time

It seems that there have been so many scandals involving the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton that it is hard to keep track. After a while it seems as if the investigations never seem to end. Well, there’s a reason the investigations seem to drag on–sometimes the information needed to conduct the investigation can be hard to get.

The Hill reported yesterday that thousands of emails from Lois Lerner have magically appeared.

The article reports:

The Treasury inspector general for tax administration (TIGTA) said it found roughly 6,400 emails either to or from Lerner sent between 2004 and 2013 that it didn’t think the IRS had turned over to lawmakers, the panels said. The committees have yet to examine the emails, according to Capitol Hill aides.

…But a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said the committee hoped the new emails would bring the panel closer to releasing the findings of its IRS investigation. Committee aides have said the panel was close to finishing its report when the IRS said it couldn’t locate the Lerner emails last year.

“These emails will be carefully examined as part of the committee’s bipartisan IRS investigation,” the spokesman said. “After TIGTA produces their report regarding the missing data later this year, the Committee hopes to follow suit and move forward with the release of its bipartisan report on this issue.” 

If the IRS had produced the emails when they were originally asked to, the investigation would be over. I also can’t help wondering if the emails have been tampered with in any way.

Bias? What Bias?

Brent Bozell posted an article at Townhall.com today contrasting the reporting on Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren during the Senate budget debate. The contrast is amazing.

The article reports:

Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Elizabeth Warren are polar opposites, a Tea Party conservative and an Occupy Wall Street socialist. Then there are the similarities: Both were elected in 2012, both have Harvard on their resume and both are mentioned as presidential material. But the media’s read of the two demonstrates an unquestionable slant.

Both senators have shaken up the Senate over heavy spending and regulation. When Warren does it, she’s promoted as a profile in courage, standing up for fairness. When Cruz does it, he’s a selfish brat causing meltdowns.

The article reminds us to look for this type of reporting as the 2016 Presidential campaign begins.

The article cites an example of bias in The Hill:

William Jacobson at the blog Legal Insurrection found another example in The Hill newspaper, reflecting the Capitol’s own tilt like a funhouse mirror. His examples were less than 24 hours apart. Warren drew the Dec. 12 headline “Warren makes her mark,” and on Dec. 13, the headline was “Cruz center of Senate meltdown.” The articles even had the same author, a hack named Alexander Bolton.

The article concludes:

All this provides a precise GPS location for our liberal media. To them, Ted Cruz is a dangerous extremist, but Warren is their heroine — compassionate, professorial and politically and economically correct. Anyone who expects objectivity from the press is badly out of touch.

Look for this pattern throughout the 2016 campaign.