Like most federal agencies, the National Labor Relations Board has grossly expanded its authority to address labor issues outside of its original, legitimate jurisdiction.
When the NLRB was created in 1935, its purpose was to enforce the National Labor Relations Act and to oversee union elections.
In the 1930s, unions had less than adequate power to ameliorate the extremely poor working conditions and unfair pay for laborers. The inequitable treatment of union employees, such as owners hiring strikebreakers loaded with machine guns and tear gas, legitimately necessitated legal intervention.
Now the NLRB has moved far from its legitimate purpose of protecting union employees from unjust employer practices to demonizing lawful employers, dictating business decisions and discriminating against right-to-work states and employees.
In April, the NLRB filed a complaint against The Boeing Company after the company opened a new manufacturing plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state.
Boeing’s plants in Seattle and Portland lost billions of dollars over the past 36 years because of five strikes from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union.
The NLRB accused Boeing of punishing IAMAW workers for said strikes by opening its new plant in a right-to-work state. The NLRB asserted several times that Boeing had intimidated union employees into refraining from striking and had threatened them with loss of jobs.
Compare the current complaints to those of the 1930s, when unions sought the rights to work in safe and sanitary factories and to earn wages that could literally feed their families.
The complaint that Boeing created a plant in South Carolina as punishment for past strikes would be legitimate if the NLRB could produce even one person in Washington or Oregon who lost a job as a result of Boeing’s decision.
Boeing didn’t shut down its Washington plants and has since created around 2,000 jobs in Washington. In addition, workers did not see a reduction in wages or benefits.
Citing an interview of the company’s CEO Jim Albaugh, the Board accused Albaugh of threatening “the loss of future Unit work opportunities because of such strikes.” After watching the video and hearing him say, “[Washington] is the headquarters of Boeing commercial aircraft and will be, I think, for probably forever,” any normal person would conclude the NLRB was delusional.
On a broader level, the case underscores the role and scope of the federal government. Does the federal government have the right to require a company to relocate to a different state?
Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, and the executive branch — and therefore the NLRB — is charged with enforcing Congress’ laws. Congress has made no law authorizing or mandating the NLRB to dictate in what states companies can or cannot expand businesses. The NLRB’s prescribed remedy is an egregious breach of its granted powers.
The NLRB has overreached its legitimate jurisdiction by fighting a battle grounded not in legitimate complaint but in liberal ideology. Boeing has every right to open its facility in the right-to work state of South Carolina. Neither the NLRB nor any other federal agency has the authority to dictate where the company can expand its business.
Austin Casey is a 19-year-old medical physics junior from Mandeville. Follw him on Twitter @TDR_Austincasey.
——
Contact Austin Casey at [email protected]