Learn more about


Content is consistently relevant and addresses key issues influencing labor relations and union avoidance.

great to be able to get good information to educate employees

Hi Phil, I would like to thank your team on our recent victory over the IAFF in our election on Friday. We won with about 2/3 of the votes in our favor. I could not have done it without the great work of Scott. He got to the root of the problem almost immediately and got me headed in the right direction. Thanks again for your expert help.
W. Woodcock

Breaking: Representative Miller Weighs In On Potential Hayes Resignation

We’ve been reporting on the nasty letter exchange between Board Members Hayes and Pearce over the last week. Now Representative George Miller, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, has decided to get in the act (click the link or the letter to the right to download the full letter from Representative Miller).

Miller’s letter accuses Member Hayes of receiving improper influence and “enticements” from “special interest organizations” (like conservative bloggers and Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina). It would be interesting to see a similar request made of Members Pearce and Becker about any conversations they have had with representatives of labor unions or politicians about how to jam through the NLRB ambush election rule.

While I’ve never communicated with or even met Member Hayes, I’ve been clear about my point of view on his resignation. It is his personal decision, and I can see arguments both for and against. He certainly is entitled to resign. When Hayes promised to serve out his term he couldn’t possibly have imagined that Pearce would throw out to rule book to jam through a rulemaking in this unprecedented way. At the same time it is also easy to see why Hayes would not want to leave the Board with only Member Pearce in charge for a year or more – even without a quorum.

At the end of the day Member Hayes has to do what he thinks is right for him personally and the long-term credibility of an agency that, let’s face it, is pretty much out of credibility at this point. But if Representative Miller and the Democrats really want Hayes to to serve out the remainder of his term I’d respectfully suggest that everyone take the guns away from each other’s heads and take a deep breath.

Pearce and Becker should call off the meeting on Wednesday and agree to follow the normal rulemaking procedures (you know, things like actually reading and responding to all the comments and drafting an actual rule that is responsive to those comments before you vote on them). If that means that the rule doesn’t make it before Becker’s recess appointment ends that isn’t Member Hayes’ fault. The Democrat Members of the Board have already proven with the Notice Posting rule that they don’t need any help from Member Hayes to get their rules done.

The bottom line is that the Democrat Members picked their battles and they started this one too late. They got a ton of other pro-labor decisions and rulemaking out the door before the end of Becker’s term and they should be satisfied with that. Forcing Hayes to allow all the normal procedural rules be tossed aside to jam through this blatantly partisan and politically motivated rulemaking process is asking too much. If Hayes does resign to prevent the Board from having a quorum, Pearce, Becker and now Representative Miller have nobody to blame but themselves.

4 comments to Breaking: Representative Miller Weighs In On Potential Hayes Resignation

  • Herbert Harrington

    With all the money problems Rep. Miller and his fellow politicians have created, and now refuse to address, it is almost laughable that he wants Mr. Hayes to spend thousands of dollars for his personal gratification and campaign. The saddest part of this is that he, as the letter writer will never read one word of what may be produced.
    Personally, I would tell the Rep. that with in order to be fair to all involved and avoid charges of bias against him, since those kinds of allegations have been made about other members, his letter should be revised to inlude all members. Further, because of the enormous cost involved for the research and reproduction of these materials they would need a supplemental appropriation to their budget or layoffs could occur

  • Harry

    Nov. 25th, 2011—comment

    Labor Unions have left their root purpose in life & now
    are “muscle in” useless, terror, criminal organizations!
    Both the NLRB & ALL Unions need to be abolished. We, as
    a Nation can no longer sustain the “Cost Plus” way of
    doing things in Today’s work place! Union Bosses are no
    less than “Communist Thugs” bent on carrying out the Democrat Party’s destruction of the U.S.A. as we know it!
    Look at any Military contracts and see the “Cost Plus”
    clause. This clause allows over-runs which pays for higher Union demands. It’s a never ending increase in costs for the taxpayer to cough up money for.
    It’s a “You’ve got it”, “We want it”, & “We’re gonna get it,” any way We can! This applies to most Union Jobs.

  • donald`bronski

    Basically what you are saying are two things.
    1. The language you u use in telling the representative it is his choice whether to resign or not is typical, usual and must come in a prepared workbook for potential representatives. “How to write a response when somone from your party does something for which you believe hs should resign for don’t want to say so out loud.” . Its been used by both parties many times almost word for word
    2. If he did do something for which he should resign, well that is mitigated by the fact thAT, ALTHOUGH ican’t PROVE IT. i’M SURE THE OTHER GUYS DID TOO. rEMEMBER WHEN YOU WERE A KID AND THE OLD SAYING ‘Well JUST BECAUSE JOHNNY IS GOING TO JUMP OFF THE BRIDGE DOES THAT MEAN YOU HAVE TO ALSO. ? Silly arguements and VERY self serving . Please remember that I don;’t even know who the people you are talking about arer so i’m not being prejudiced. Dont really care.,

  • Archangel

    The “HYPOCRISY” of the “DEMOCRATS” can be illustrated by their incessant condemnation of the proverbial “SCHOOLYARD BULLY”, who they allege, intimidates and coerces with violent and egregious behavior, the rest of the children on the playground, and yet, these same “DEMOCRATS”, will “CONDONE and APPLAUD” the very intimidation, coercion and violent behavior of the schoolyard bully they so vehemently decry when the “COMMUNIST UNIONS”, to whom they have sold their allegiance, to whom they are indebted for their very existence, employ the same violent and egregious behavior of the SCHOOLYARD BULLY against “INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGN AMERICAN’S” who have elected to not participate in a Union!
    This is exemplified by the 1973 SUPREME COURT decision in U.S. v Enmons where the JUDICIARY, in a demonstration of their awe inspiring ignorance, arrived at the conclusion that Union Officials are exempt from prosecution for egregious and violent acts against Individual Sovereign Americans, when those egregious and violent acts are employed to gain a LEGITIMATE Union objective!
    There could be no clearer example of State sponsored FASCISM than this ludicrous decision by the JUDICIARY!

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>