Playing fairly in the labor sandbox

The news today is that President Obama’s supposedly-recess appointments to the NLRB (National Labor and Relations Board) were ruled unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (I’d link it, but it’s everywhere, so pick your favorite national news source and go for it.)

What tickles me is the outright belligerence by the White House to accept the news. From the press secretary to the NLRB chair and including AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (the head pooh-bah of all things union), everyone swears it doesn’t matter. They will manage business as usual – as though the ruling never took place. It will, after all, be appealed.

So my question to them: Why can’t we make the same assertion about Wisconsin Act 10? I mean, it’s being appealed. Why does the State of Wisconsin have to be shackled in those Dane County Court rulings if unions don’t have to listen to a US Court of Appeals?

This is the fundamental heartache with having such a divided country. We are not going to expand our business capabilities and create jobs as a state or a nation as long as so much is unknown. To whom do you listen? How will you place your bets as a potential business owner?

I think I’m coming to agree that a divided America is costing us as far as growing new jobs. I think I’ll also say a genuine move one way or the other would at least let a business know the rules. But, I’m not willing to give into the demands of big unions anytime soon. I don’t think they’ll be seeing my way next week, either.

So it’s a stalemate. Rules are written, but what’s good for a goose doesn’t hold for a gander. It’s the Wild West as long as you are willing to accept the risk of your choice should a clear decision be made down the line and cost you.

On the surface, today’s ruling was very damning for both the President and unions in the United States. Only time will tell how long both of them will demand to hold on in spite of the Constitution.

PS – Today I decided I’ll be calling POTUS by a new name – IMPOTUS. I just don’t think that man is going to be able to accomplish a thing that sticks in the next four years.

Comments

  1. Nice analysis Cindy.

  2. The “uncertainty” argument has been around forever. This time period in history is no different than any other.

  3. It’s been around forever, but only applicable in certain time frames. There’s been a lot of uncertainty in the last decade.

  4. I know this is a liberal source, but with a little more effort a conservative source would corroborate the facts. Every other president out appointed Obama. Why the loud outcry now?

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/chart-day-presidential-recess-appointments

  5. No one else took it to the courts. That’s the reason it’s a big deal now.

  6. @mg, it isn’t a numbers game. Recess appointments are perfectly legal. What isn’t legal is making “recess” appointments when the Senate isn’t actually in recess. Harry Reid used these “pro forma” sessions back in 2007 to prevent the imperialist president George W. Bush from making recess appointments. I don’t recall Mother Jones kicking up a fuss about how obstructionist Harry Reid was, or how these pro forma sessions were just shams.

  7. Better answer, KPOM. The left is screaming because they have something about which to claim injustice again. There was pent up demand, I suppose. It’s been a little slow out there.