Who decides where a company should be located?

Apparently, the government thinks the union should...Read the original here.

More In Store For Businesses Like Boeing « Hot Air

The complaint against Boeing might have just been the beginning. It seems the National Labor Relations Board can’t bear to let businesses relocate without allowing unions to have a say.

Current NLRB rules allow a business to move without first negotiating the relocation with its union — provided the decision doesn’t turn on labor costs. But according to a recent internal memo[1] from the NLRB general counsel’s office, NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman now wants to compel businesses to provide unions with information about relocation decisions in advance. That way, Liebman reasons, unions will have a chance to ascertain to what extent the business is moving because of labor costs — and will ultimately be able to bargain against the move.

On one level, this sounds sensible: If a business decides to relocate and the decision seems to be based primarily on labor cost concerns, union leaders might complain to the NLRB — and say, given the chance to bargain, they would have made concessions that might have altered the business’ decision. In other words, requiring businesses to advise unions as to the motivation for a move in advance might necessitate bargaining — but it might also spare companies NLRB involvement. That seems to be what Liebman wants businesses to believe, anyway.

But to require business leaders to provide unions with this kind of detailed information about their business plan is just one step closer to making unions “equal partner[s] in the running of the business enterprise” — and the Supreme Court has already said the National Labor Relations Act in no way mandates such equal partnership.

Moreover, these requirements would be expensive[2].

What Liebman envisions would raise business costs enormously. Current labor law and the attitude of the pro-union NLRB enables unions to drag negotiations on … and on … and on. Until bargaining hits an “impasse,” employers could not legally make any business changes opposed by their union.

If the NLRB really wants to preserve work in any given state, its best bet would be to advise that state to pass right-to-work legislation. Compared to forced-unionism states, right-to-work states have more new residents, more new businesses, more new jobs and faster income growth, according to a new report[3]from Sen. Jim DeMint. What’s not to like?

References
^ memo (mynlrb.nlrb.gov)
^ these requirements would be expensive (www.nationalreview.com)
^ a new report (demint.senate.gov)