Bobby Schilling: Tool Of Big Labor

Another one of those letters to the Hare-Dispatch editors, seemingly written by someone pulled from detox by the Democrats for that purpose, parrots the already trite “Flip-Flop Bobby” bit about Amtrak funding plus this addressed directly to Bobby Schilling:

“. . . I distinctly remember you ran as a former labor leader . . . How about telling us what your thoughts are with the current union-busting bill that is driven by the newly elected Republican governor of Wisconsin? Having so many constituents with union backgrounds in your district, one would think that your thoughts would be appropriate.”

Mr. DeTox doesn’t have to wait for an answer to his burning question because I have the answer about Schilling’s level of devotion to Big Labor.

On February 17 the House of Representatives voted 176-250 AGAINST defunding the National Labor Relations Board. Schilling was one of the no votes.

The NLRB is described as a union controlled “de-facto union organizing committee for union bosses and is intent on cramming unions down companies’ throats by any means necessary.”

Doesn’t that say more about Schilling’s committment to Big Labor better than any comment about the situation in Wisconsin?


Author: qcexaminer

None of your damned business.

8 thoughts on “Bobby Schilling: Tool Of Big Labor”

  1. Yeah, I noticed Schock and most of the newly elected Illinois GOPers voted against this, so I figured there was some sort of rationale for their vote—although I can’t think of what that would be at the moment.

    Let us know what Schock says about this and if I don’t hear something from the Schilling camp by some time Monday, I’ll email/call them.

  2. My guess is that this is the avenue that government and labor use to negotiate when unions and businesses can’t come to an agreement. It does seem like they are a redundant government org and probably not needed. I didn’t see anything on web page that talked card check. But i can see why Illinois congressman voted for it, because their districts are highly dependent on union jobs. Look, Deer, Caterpillar, ADM, etc need organized labor for negotiations. These companies find it much easier to deal with one group than they do each individual employee. Sometimes unions are necessary. It is these public sector unions bosses that are in the face of the tax payer demanding higher pay.

    I was surprised to find this on their web page:

    Examples of labor organization conduct that violates the law:

    Threats to employees that they will lose their jobs unless they support the union.
    Seeking the suspension, discharge or other punishment of an employee for not being a union member even if the employee has paid or offered to pay a lawful initiation fee and periodic fees thereafter.
    Refusing to process a grievance because an employee has criticized union officials or because an employee is not a member of the union in states where union security clauses are not permitted.
    Fining employees who have validly resigned from the union for engaging in protected concerted activities following their resignation or for crossing an unlawful picket line.
    Engaging in picket line misconduct, such as threatening, assaulting, or barring non-strikers from the employer’s premises.
    Striking over issues unrelated to employment terms and conditions or coercively enmeshing neutrals into a labor dispute.

    Just thought this was food for thought. And I am sure that these congressman considered this when they voted.

  3. The point from the BigGov link was that they use taxpayer money to advertise about how to form unions. And Obama is using the agency to push unions, just because he can and no one is stopping him.

    They seem to have lost the card check battle for now, but are trying back door methods to continue to push their cause.

    I’m not sure what else NLRB really does, but if Obama is going to usurp them for his union building goals, they must be getting too much public funding.

  4. According to the Schilling people, whatev mostly nailed it in #3:

    1. NLRB is not as anti-business, pro-labor as it was described in the linked biggovernment post

    2. Schilling has many union people in his district and they are an important constituency whose issues must be considered.

  5. I really didn’t research it except for that article and its links, but it does seem Obama is using NLRB for his own purposes. That may even be illegal, like so many other things Obama just “does”. It seems a proper Republican response would have been to at least reduce their funding. Maybe next time.

    The NRO article was more detailed.

    “After the defeats at the ballot box last November, the president must have recognized that amending labor law in an attempt to bolster private-sector unions would go nowhere in Congress. The more convenient approach is to task the NLRB and Mr. Becker, who also bypassed congressional approval, with implementing a nationwide unionization push.

    Obama is a union rep first and foremost, and encourages obstruction of government in WI and OH, and bypasses congress in DC. These are not ordinary times.

  6. The Schilling people sent me a couple of links to bolster their opinion that NLRB is pro-business.

    They also mentioned that the board is a five member panel and Obama has two nominations for the board, but their confirmations have been hung up. Supposedly, for now, NLRB is mostly a Bush board.

    So I dunno—there seems to be conflicting information out there. Maybe it’s best to chalk it up to the fact that there are a lot of union people in Schilling’s district—and Schock’s—and leave it at that.

  7. That’s one problem with “transparency”, with so much of this stuff we never get the full story. Republicans tried to oppose funding, but I’d have to read the minutes to try to find if it was a real fight or some “showboating”. Other Republicans get to say they voted for it, those that have more unions in their area “held the line”.

    I’d hope that our journalists would get the real story. But I’d also like our reps to be able to explain their votes on their web pages. Especially if they take a stance against something that sounds popular with tea party types that elected them.

    Maybe that would require a bigger staff, but when they make a list on BigGovernment and other sites, I’d like to be able to go to their web page and see their argument. Maybe they could add you to their staff, and save a few emails. 🙂

    I haven’t heard back from Schock yet. Obama got elected promising transparency and no lobbyists, then went full blown lobbyist, and everything behind closed doors. But I think real “transparency” would work for Republicans, whereas Democrats have to hide behind promises of unicorns.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s