Exclusive: Hospital chain defies NLRB rulings after court decision

This is the kind of chaos we get with a fanatic Socialist running (or ruining) America.

As will soon be demonstrated, two can play that game and labor chaos may be the result.

The NLRB has exclusive jurisdiction to issue remedies under the NLRA. That means neither state nor federal courts can step in when a party misbehaves. If this hospital chain thinks it has its union on the ropes, wait til it decides to call a strike without adequate notice or engage in a secondary boycott, entangling non-involved employers in what would normally be a primary strike. This hospital chain may not appreciate that the unintended consequences rule will come into play–to its regret.

Plus, the lawyers need to consider whether their advice to defy the NLRB may also qualify as giving advice to a client to break the law–and thereby be guilty of a breach of legal ethics.

Besides that, as a matter of labor relations policy, it’s usually best not to antagonize the employees unnecessarily. It’s common for them to bite back. Sugar still works better than vinegar. And if you have no sugar, why use vinegar?

It’s too bad the Senate is broken; it needs to man up and put the nominations to a vote in a timely way.

And Cap, you’d be better off if you knew the definition of socialism before you posted–a system we don’t have and a system Obama does not embrace.

3k: Is the hospital antagonizing the employees, or antagonizing the union? There is a difference. How does stopping the collection of union dues after the collective bargaining agreement expires hurt the employee?
They should be writing their own dues checks anyway, imo.

Not speaking to the specific dispute here (though I could), but to the tactic of rejecting the law due to the Labor Board’s current/temporary disability. There are two sides to the Act, 8(a) for employers and 8(b) [also 8(g)] for unions. If one side (like this employer) can ignore it, then the other can as well. This will result in leaving the field entirely unregulated, meaning that there may be serious trouble ahead. There would be: refusals to bargain, discharges for protected conduct, secondary boycotts, and recognitional picketing to name a few unfair labor practices. Nor would there be any representation elections. Congress gave these matters to the NLRB in 1935, 1947 and 1959. If the NLRB can’t act, it presages a return to the bad old days. The wild west of labor disputes will begin again.