Biden Gave Trump’s Union Busters a Taste of Their Own Medicine

[homersapien 11,366]

Irony. 

 

By Mark Joseph Stern

 

Twenty-three minutes after assuming the presidency, Joe Biden demanded the resignation of Peter Robb, the notoriously anti-union general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board appointed by Donald Trump. Robb refused to resign, so Biden fired him. Alice Stock, another anti-union Trump appointee, then assumed the role of acting general counsel—and Biden demanded her resignation the next day. Stock also refused to resign, so Biden fired her, too.

Both Robb and Stock, who relentlessly undermined unions’ ability to organize and bargain, are now complaining that Biden fired them without just cause. Stock went so far as to suggest that Robb’s firing was illegal. She is wrong. Robb and Stock were at-will employees of the executive. Like the countless American workers whom they prevented from unionizing, they had no guarantee against termination without just cause. Biden did not violate any laws. He simply gave the nation’s chief union busters a taste of their own medicine.

Yet when Biden requested Robb’s resignation at 12:23 p.m. on Jan. 20, Robb insisted he should be allowed to carry out the 10 months remaining in his term. In a letter, he effectively accused the new president of firing him for partisan reasons without just cause. Robb charged Biden with violating his inaugural promise “to adhere to the rule of law” by denying him “the independence, free from White House interference, to enforce the laws of the United States.” He added that Biden had flouted “Congress’ intent” that the general counsel be “independent” from the executive branch. Republican lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, seized on Robb’s cause to accuse Biden of betraying his pledge to unify the country.

Contrary to Robb’s claim, the NLRB general counsel is not, in fact, “independent.” The NLRB board is independent, as the president may only fire its members “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” But Biden did not fire any members of the board—even though it is currently dominated by anti-labor Republicans. He fired the general counsel. As labor law expert Brandon Magner has pointed out, Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed this fact while serving as associate White House counsel. In a 1983 memo, Roberts explained the “clear” rule that the NLRB general counsel “serves at the pleasure of the President.” He elaborated that the president does not need “cause” to justify the general counsel’s removal.

Several Republicans have sought to bolster Robb’s suggestion that Biden violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the National Labor Relations Act, which created the NLRB. Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx asserted that Robb’s termination “flouts” the law, which is simply false. And Alice Stock, whom Trump installed as deputy general counsel at the NLRB, complained about the “dubious legality” of Biden’s move. Indeed, Stock actually rejected Biden’s request for her resignation on the basis that she did not accept the legality of Robb’s firing. It is remarkable that the acting general counsel of the NLRB had such a profound misunderstanding of the laws she was tasked with enforcing. No matter: Stock, another management-side lawyer who helped Robb shred unions, served less than one full day as acting general counsel before Biden sacked her. Biden can now replace her with a pro-labor regional director at the NLRB or a current top official in the general counsel’s office.

The rabidly anti-union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation whined about Robb’s firing on Thursday, insisting that it “was not anything actually he did as General Counsel.” It also urged Stock to resist Biden’s request for resignation. The foundation, along with Foxx, Stock, and other conservative activists, now apparently wishes that the NLRB general counsel had safeguards against removal for political reasons—something akin to just-cause termination, which Robb and Stock tried to stop unions from obtaining for their members. Both officials, however, were at-will employees. And so they experienced a fate that nonunionized Americans suffer every day: abrupt dismissal by a boss who doesn’t need a reason to kick his subordinates out on the street.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/peter-robb-alice-stock-nlrb-fired.html

[creed 1,635]

Can someone with knowledge of the inter-workings of a union post the pros and cons of a union? Also, why does the government need a czar for a pro or anti union position in a federal position? Sounds like a waste of a position in a free-market economy.

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

On 1/28/2021 at 8:29 AM, creed said:

Can someone with knowledge of the inter-workings of a union post the pros and cons of a union? Also, why does the government need a czar for a pro or anti union position in a federal position? Sounds like a waste of a position in a free-market economy.

I was a union member for 34 years and do have some insight to their workings.  Unions are build on the *all for one and one for all* approach which is noble, but that has been twisted in a perverse way.

My union was in private industry and was very good at making contracts and upholding those contracts for the good of the union members.  If, in my industry, you were being investigated by a government agency they would defend you to the end.  This alone is worth the price of admission.  They were good at contract disputes and getting benefits for the members.

Most unions are local to the company they serve, but are governed by the National union and must capitulate to the whims of their position.  An example of this is in the 1970’s Piedmont Airlines (a regional carrier at the time) was told to go on strike to force the airline to put a 3rd pilot on the Flightdeck for all flights.  No other airline had this requirement, but the National union wanted this arrangement and picked Piedmont to obtain this in all airline contracts.  The reason, of course, was to increase union jobs never mind it was a nonproductive position and cost company money uselessly.  This position was short lived as most aircraft are now two man crews unless international travel over 8 hours would require more.

Union members make up the Master Executive Council that govern the local union.  This is good when it comes to issues with the company as it represents the membership, but the council can be very political as to what is an issue worth fighting for.  The local union has meetings that can be manipulated by *packing the union hall* as (in the past) you had to be present to vote on issues.  This can divide the local union.

Strikes are the last resort when it comes to negotiations and can be tenuous if you are involved in one.  When negotiations break down the company and union can agree to go into a 30 day cooling off period.  At the beginning of this period the union will take a *strike vote* which gauges the interest in the particular issue.  These votes very well are in the 90% or above range as voting otherwise would negate the desire for a strike.  There is tremendous pressure to vote for a strike.  At the end of the cooling off period, the company can force their latest contract on you and the union has the right to reject that proposal and go on strike.  

In good times the unions can get great benefits and pay raises, in bad times they can only control the bleeding.  Union members are not professional negotiators, but do have professional negotiators available to them at the National level.  The local union does not have to take the National union’s negotiation advise, so it can turn out to be a very emotional decision whether to trust the company.  If the union leadership believes the company is not negotiating in good faith they can cause the company to file bankruptcy.  See Eastern Airlines, Continental Airlines and the steel industry.

The government usually does not interfere with the workings of a union unless it presents a disruption to normal life.  One example of this is President Clinton blocked the Flight Attendant union at American Airlines from striking over the Thanksgiving/Christmas holiday season during his presidency.  This took a lot of leverage from the FAs, but it was for the good of the nation.

Now to your question about czar for unions.  I’m not sure on this one as it would only be my opinion, but there have been times in the past where government unions have wanted to strike and the it is illegal to strike a Federal government job.  In 1981 when Reagan fired all the ATCs that refused to come back to work.  However, state employees can strike such as teachers, and this is where a czar may come in to quell or restrict a strike (speculating here).  The Chicago school teachers are threatening a strike and a czar could be an arbitrator in that matter.  Unions are basically socialist in design and Democrats tend to be pro-union and Republicans more free enterprise.

Probably more than you wanted to know, but it might enlighten you a little.

[creed 1,635]

Thanks I_M4_AU. Very interesting. Just from a outsider with little knowledge of unions this is my perceptions. One, is they seem to be closed minded organization that are not open to diversity of thought. Second, they are very seniority based, where go-getters have to wait instead of work their way up the success chain. Thirdly, they are not very flexible to meet expanding business needs, which doesn't appear to fit new, small or startup businesses and more tailored to established big business. 

[I_M4_AU 7,801]

1 minute ago, creed said:

Thanks I_M4_AU. Very interesting. Just from a outsider with little knowledge of unions this is my perceptions. One, is they seem to be closed minded organization that are not open to diversity of thought. Second, they are very seniority based, where go-getters have to wait instead of work their way up the success chain. Thirdly, they are not very flexible to meet expanding business needs, which doesn't appear to fit new, small or startup businesses and more tailored to established big business. 

1, Unions are for the members, period.  They speak with one voice, you can dissent in meetings and union halls, but after the vote is taken, that’s it, end of discussion.

2, Seniority is the only way it can happen.  Who in the union is going to evaluate your performance?  That’s the company’s job.  If you are a go-getter you rise in the ranks of the union, otherwise you may be able to get a *company* job (training) and still be in the union or just don’t pick a job that is heavily unionized.

3, It’s not the union’s job to meet expanding business needs, the union relishes the chance to renegotiate it’s contract due to expanding needs.  It’s the unions chance to grow with the company and take a greater share of the pie the new expansion will create.  The union will resist any downward change in the business and demand the company stick with the original deal.  Downward trends are were most of (but not all) the cooling off periods come from.

I would think a small company will bend over backwards to avoid having a union on the property.  The best thing for a start up/new company to do is treat it’s employees better that of an employee at unionized shop.

[DKW 86 7,419]

And the Keystone Pipeline supposedly dropped 11,000 High Paying Union jobs....