CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
14,662
edits
National Labor Relations Board: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "Democrats" to "Democrats"
m (Text replacement - "Lyndon B. Johnson" to "Lyndon B. Johnson") |
m (Text replacement - "Democrats" to "Democrats") |
||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
The Economic Division was a critical one for the NLRB. Cause-and-effect was one of the fundamental assumptions of the National Labor Relations Act, and for the causes of labor unrest to be understood economic analysis was needed.{{sfn|Stryker|1989|p=344}} From the start, the Economic Division undertook three important tasks: 1) Gather economic data in support of cases before the courts; 2) Conduct general studies of labor relations to guide the board in formulating decisions and policies; and 3) Research the history of labor relations (the history of written agreements, whether certain issues were historically part of collective bargaining, how unions functioned internally, trends in employer activities, trends in collective bargaining, whether certain employer actions led to labor disputes, etc.) so that the board could educate itself, the courts, Congress, and the public about labor relations.{{sfn|Gross|1974|pp=176–79}} The first function proved critical to the survival of the NLRB. It was the Economic Division's data and analysis, more than then NLRB's legal reasoning, which proved critical in persuading the Supreme Court to sustain the Wagner Act in ''NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel''.{{sfn|Gross|1974|pp=176–79, 191}}{{sfn|Stryker|1989|p=347}} The Court even cited several Economic Division studies in its decision.{{sfn|Gross|1974|pp=228–29}} In the wake of ''Jones & Laughlin Steel'', many labor relations experts outside the agency concluded that economic analysis was "an accepted fact" essential to the proper functioning of the agency.{{sfn|Gross|1974|p=233}} The Economic Division did, too. It asked Madden to pair an economist with an attorney in every important case,{{sfn|Eisner|2000|p=101}} and prepared outline of the economic data needed to support each case in case it went before the courts.{{sfn|Gross|1974|pp=182–83}} | The Economic Division was a critical one for the NLRB. Cause-and-effect was one of the fundamental assumptions of the National Labor Relations Act, and for the causes of labor unrest to be understood economic analysis was needed.{{sfn|Stryker|1989|p=344}} From the start, the Economic Division undertook three important tasks: 1) Gather economic data in support of cases before the courts; 2) Conduct general studies of labor relations to guide the board in formulating decisions and policies; and 3) Research the history of labor relations (the history of written agreements, whether certain issues were historically part of collective bargaining, how unions functioned internally, trends in employer activities, trends in collective bargaining, whether certain employer actions led to labor disputes, etc.) so that the board could educate itself, the courts, Congress, and the public about labor relations.{{sfn|Gross|1974|pp=176–79}} The first function proved critical to the survival of the NLRB. It was the Economic Division's data and analysis, more than then NLRB's legal reasoning, which proved critical in persuading the Supreme Court to sustain the Wagner Act in ''NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel''.{{sfn|Gross|1974|pp=176–79, 191}}{{sfn|Stryker|1989|p=347}} The Court even cited several Economic Division studies in its decision.{{sfn|Gross|1974|pp=228–29}} In the wake of ''Jones & Laughlin Steel'', many labor relations experts outside the agency concluded that economic analysis was "an accepted fact" essential to the proper functioning of the agency.{{sfn|Gross|1974|p=233}} The Economic Division did, too. It asked Madden to pair an economist with an attorney in every important case,{{sfn|Eisner|2000|p=101}} and prepared outline of the economic data needed to support each case in case it went before the courts.{{sfn|Gross|1974|pp=182–83}} | ||
During his time on the NLRB, Madden was often opposed by the [[American Federation of Labor]] (AFL), which believed that Madden was using the NLRA and the procedures and staff of the NLRB to favor the AFL's primary competitor, the [[Congress of Industrial Organizations]] (CIO).<ref>Stark, Louis. "Both A.F.L. and C.I.O. Hit at National Labor Board." ''New York Times''. October 14, 1937.</ref>{{sfn|Gall|1999|pp=83–84, 97–98}} The NLRB and NLRA were also under intense pressure from employers, the press, congressional [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]], and conservative | During his time on the NLRB, Madden was often opposed by the [[American Federation of Labor]] (AFL), which believed that Madden was using the NLRA and the procedures and staff of the NLRB to favor the AFL's primary competitor, the [[Congress of Industrial Organizations]] (CIO).<ref>Stark, Louis. "Both A.F.L. and C.I.O. Hit at National Labor Board." ''New York Times''. October 14, 1937.</ref>{{sfn|Gall|1999|pp=83–84, 97–98}} The NLRB and NLRA were also under intense pressure from employers, the press, congressional [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]], and conservative Democrats.{{sfn|Gross|1974|pp=171–73}}{{sfn|Gross|1981|p=2}} | ||
The NLRB's Economic Division proved critical in pushing for a congressional investigation into employer anti-union activities, and ensuring that investigation was a success. The Economic Division was deeply aware of employer use of [[Labor spy|labor spies]], violence, and [[company union]]s to thwart union organizing, and quietly pressed for a congressional investigation into these and other tactics. Senator [[Robert M. La Follette Jr.]] took up the suggestion, on June 6, 1936, the [[United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions|Senate Committee on Education and Labor]] established a Subcommittee Investigating Violations of Free Speech and the Rights of Labor chaired by La Follette.{{sfn|Gross|1974|pp=214–23}} Better known as the "[[La Follette Committee]]", the subcommittee held extensive hearings for five years and published numerous reports. The committee uncovered extensive evidence of millions of company dollars used to pay for spies and [[fifth column]]ists within unions, exposed the culpability of local law enforcement in acts of violence and murder against union supporters (particularly in the [[Harlan County War]]),{{sfn|Baker|Stack|2006|pp=56–57}} revealed the wide extent of illegal [[blacklisting]] of union members, and exposed the use of armed [[strikebreaker]]s and widespread stockpiling of tear gas, vomit gas, machine guns, mortars, and armor by corporations to use against [[Strike action|strikers]].{{sfn|Luff|2007|p=774}} Some of the evidence the committee used was provided by the Economic Division,{{sfn|Lambert|2005|p=90}} and the investigation proved critical for a time in defending the agency from business and congressional attack.{{sfn|Gross|1974|pp=214–23}} | The NLRB's Economic Division proved critical in pushing for a congressional investigation into employer anti-union activities, and ensuring that investigation was a success. The Economic Division was deeply aware of employer use of [[Labor spy|labor spies]], violence, and [[company union]]s to thwart union organizing, and quietly pressed for a congressional investigation into these and other tactics. Senator [[Robert M. La Follette Jr.]] took up the suggestion, on June 6, 1936, the [[United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions|Senate Committee on Education and Labor]] established a Subcommittee Investigating Violations of Free Speech and the Rights of Labor chaired by La Follette.{{sfn|Gross|1974|pp=214–23}} Better known as the "[[La Follette Committee]]", the subcommittee held extensive hearings for five years and published numerous reports. The committee uncovered extensive evidence of millions of company dollars used to pay for spies and [[fifth column]]ists within unions, exposed the culpability of local law enforcement in acts of violence and murder against union supporters (particularly in the [[Harlan County War]]),{{sfn|Baker|Stack|2006|pp=56–57}} revealed the wide extent of illegal [[blacklisting]] of union members, and exposed the use of armed [[strikebreaker]]s and widespread stockpiling of tear gas, vomit gas, machine guns, mortars, and armor by corporations to use against [[Strike action|strikers]].{{sfn|Luff|2007|p=774}} Some of the evidence the committee used was provided by the Economic Division,{{sfn|Lambert|2005|p=90}} and the investigation proved critical for a time in defending the agency from business and congressional attack.{{sfn|Gross|1974|pp=214–23}} | ||
| Line 176: | Line 176: | ||
===2007–2014: Lack of quorum and legal challenges=== | ===2007–2014: Lack of quorum and legal challenges=== | ||
From December 2007 to mid-July 2013, the agency never had all five members, and not once did it operate with three confirmed members, creating a legal controversy.<ref>Landler, Mark and Greenhouse, Steven. [https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/us/politics/vacancies-and-partisan-fighting-put-labor-relations-agency-in-legal-limbo.html "Vacancies and Partisan Fighting Put Labor Relations Agency in Legal Limbo"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170521072717/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/us/politics/vacancies-and-partisan-fighting-put-labor-relations-agency-in-legal-limbo.html|date=2017-05-21}}, ''New York Times'', July 15, 2013; accessed July 16, 2013.</ref> Three members' terms expired in December 2007, leaving the NLRB with just two members—Chairman [[Wilma B. Liebman]] and Member Peter Schaumber.<ref name="Hananel">Hananel, Sam. [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/09/07/on_labor_day_us_labor_board_remains_in_gridlock "On Labor Day, Labor Board Still in Gridlock"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090911101756/http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/09/07/on_labor_day_us_labor_board_remains_in_gridlock/ |date=2009-09-11 }}, ''Boston Globe'', September 7, 2009.</ref> President [[George W. Bush]] refused to make some nominations to the board and Senate | From December 2007 to mid-July 2013, the agency never had all five members, and not once did it operate with three confirmed members, creating a legal controversy.<ref>Landler, Mark and Greenhouse, Steven. [https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/us/politics/vacancies-and-partisan-fighting-put-labor-relations-agency-in-legal-limbo.html "Vacancies and Partisan Fighting Put Labor Relations Agency in Legal Limbo"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170521072717/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/us/politics/vacancies-and-partisan-fighting-put-labor-relations-agency-in-legal-limbo.html|date=2017-05-21}}, ''New York Times'', July 15, 2013; accessed July 16, 2013.</ref> Three members' terms expired in December 2007, leaving the NLRB with just two members—Chairman [[Wilma B. Liebman]] and Member Peter Schaumber.<ref name="Hananel">Hananel, Sam. [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/09/07/on_labor_day_us_labor_board_remains_in_gridlock "On Labor Day, Labor Board Still in Gridlock"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090911101756/http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/09/07/on_labor_day_us_labor_board_remains_in_gridlock/ |date=2009-09-11 }}, ''Boston Globe'', September 7, 2009.</ref> President [[George W. Bush]] refused to make some nominations to the board and Senate Democrats refused to confirm those which he did make.<ref name="Hananel"/><ref name="Hananel2">Hananel, Sam. "Justice Asks High Court to OK Labor Board Rulings", ''Associated Press'', September 29, 2009.</ref><ref name="Greenhouse">[https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/us/politics/15nlrb.html Greenhouse, Steven. "Labor Panel Is Stalled by Dispute on Nominee"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170318175920/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/us/politics/15nlrb.html |date=2017-03-18 }}, ''The New York Times.'' January 14, 2010.</ref> | ||
On December 28, 2007, just before the board lost its quorum, the four members agreed to delegate their authority to a three-person panel per the [[National Labor Relations Act]].<ref name="Greenhouse"/><ref name="CCHLabor">[http://hr.cch.com/news/employment/011008a.asp "NLRB Temporarily Delegates Litigation Authority to General Counsel"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110708125844/http://hr.cch.com/news/employment/011008a.asp |date=2011-07-08 }}, ''CCH/Aspen Labor & Employment Law.'' January 10, 2008.</ref> Only Liebman and Schaumber remained on the board, but the board concluded that the two constituted a [[quorum]] of the three-person panel and thus could make decisions on behalf of the board.<ref name="Greenhouse"/><ref name="CCHLabor"/> Liebman and Schaumber informally agreed to decide only those cases which were in their view noncontroversial and on which they could agree, and issued almost 400 decisions between January 2008 and September 2009.<ref name="Hananel"/><ref name="Hananel2"/><ref name="Greenhouse"/><ref name="InsideCounsel">"Court Invalidates Two-Member NLRB Decision", ''Inside Counsel'', July 2009.</ref>{{full citation needed|date=January 2016}}<ref name="Pickler">Pickler, Nedra. "NLRB Decisions Cause Conflicting Court Opinions." ''Associated Press'', May 1, 2009.</ref> | On December 28, 2007, just before the board lost its quorum, the four members agreed to delegate their authority to a three-person panel per the [[National Labor Relations Act]].<ref name="Greenhouse"/><ref name="CCHLabor">[http://hr.cch.com/news/employment/011008a.asp "NLRB Temporarily Delegates Litigation Authority to General Counsel"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110708125844/http://hr.cch.com/news/employment/011008a.asp |date=2011-07-08 }}, ''CCH/Aspen Labor & Employment Law.'' January 10, 2008.</ref> Only Liebman and Schaumber remained on the board, but the board concluded that the two constituted a [[quorum]] of the three-person panel and thus could make decisions on behalf of the board.<ref name="Greenhouse"/><ref name="CCHLabor"/> Liebman and Schaumber informally agreed to decide only those cases which were in their view noncontroversial and on which they could agree, and issued almost 400 decisions between January 2008 and September 2009.<ref name="Hananel"/><ref name="Hananel2"/><ref name="Greenhouse"/><ref name="InsideCounsel">"Court Invalidates Two-Member NLRB Decision", ''Inside Counsel'', July 2009.</ref>{{full citation needed|date=January 2016}}<ref name="Pickler">Pickler, Nedra. "NLRB Decisions Cause Conflicting Court Opinions." ''Associated Press'', May 1, 2009.</ref> | ||