Rep. Darrell Issa *destroys* the NLRB

[377OHMS]

You remember the National Labor Relations Board and its union-sponsored vendetta against Boeing for daring to establish a sister production facility in South Carolina?

Well Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is about to completely destroy the NLRB and the libs are starting to freak out. Pretty funny:

http://www.slate.com/id/2301236/

This guy kicked some liberal asses in California before he went to DC. I suppose he may run for President someday.

The libs sure are having a rough summer.

 

[GoldStandard]

I liked this line:

His crusade against the National Labor Relations Board—"...."—makes sense only if you are a subscriber to the nihilist worldview that virtually all government agencies are corrupt, socialist minions of Obama.


To me this worldview makes perfect sense. Does that make me a nihilist?


The issue with the new plant appears to be that Boeing may have opened it there instead of in South Carolina because they didn't want to expand in South Carolina where they were having labor disputes and union problems.

While I'm generally no supporter of tax-feeding defense contractor parasites like Boeing, the idea a federal agency can penalize a company for not building their new plant where their union antagonist thinks they should build it is just ridiculous and unsupportable in a free country. Even scumbag corporations like Boeing have the right to expand where they want without answering to outside private parties like unions.

I'm not anti-union per se. If a group of employees want organize a union and to threaten to quit or strike it is their right to do so. But special laws and agencies such as the NLRB that give unions special powers of coercion to impose their will on business owners and non-union employees are just wrong and contrary to the principle of equal application of the law.

A much better alternative to unions are employee-owned companies. If a group of employees want to have control over the place they work at this is a good thing, but they should have to put up some capital and share some risk as well, and become partners or co-owners, rather than exercising coercion to take control of someone elses business without investing anything.

 

[Max E.]

Issa is awesome, he is one of the few politicians i respect.

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from GoldStandard:

A much better alternative to unions are employee-owned companies. If a group of employees want to have control over the place they work at this is a good thing, but they should have to put up some capital and share some risk as well, and become partners or co-owners, rather than exercising coercion to take control of someone elses business without investing anything.

I agree with almost all you have written in your post but I really like this part.

Employee-owned just seems...very American. People with a stake in the game pursuing their dreams in a land of opportunity.

Can we get there?

Agencies like the NLRB, the EPA, the IRS and a few others seem to be standing in the way or any return to real prosperity for individuals occupying the middle-class.

The republicans propose cutting taxes on corporations. What if that were modified to cutting taxes dramatically on employee-owned (privately owned) companies? Could they become a major segment of our economy? The big publically owned companies seem intent on doing business overseas. How can companies doing business domestically be expanded?

 

[GoldStandard]

Quote from 377OHMS: What if that were modified to cutting taxes dramatically on employee-owned (privately owned) companies? Could they become a major segment of our economy? The big publically owned companies seem intent on doing business overseas. How can companies doing business domestically be expanded? [/B]

Thanks 377OHMS. You made a good point about employee-owned companies being less likely to want to move jobs overseas. I agree that employee-owned companies, and even customer-owned coops are very much an "American" way to do things.

I think what you said about employee-owned companies being more likely to keep jobs in the US is true to a large extent with small businesses in general. Small businesses owners usually have more direct ties to their community and employees than big companies do and I think are naturally less likely than big companies to want to move operations overseas.

Taxes and regulations generally hurt small companies more than big ones , since they don't have the staff to deal with the paperwork and don't have cash to hire lobbyists to get them tax breaks or subsidies. Just lowering taxes and regulations on small businesses would help employment a lot I think.

I know for sure I would hire more Americans in my own small business there wasn't so much paperwork and taxes and liability involved in doing so.