Talk:National Labor Relations Board

This page is in need of serious expansion

Despite the pretty good sources and decent writing, this article could be far longer and more in depth than it currently is.

A few things that need to be changed, just off the top of my head, are:

• An image of a plaque with the words "National Labor Relations Board" lacks a caption. Where is the sign and when was it put up? Is there anything else interesting about it?
• There is no history section (as mentioned above).
• There is no mention of the funding or budget of the NLRB.
• There is no section of criticisms or opinions on the (actions of) agency. What has organized labor thought of the board? The political Left? The Right?
• The page lacks depth generally.

If you are knowledgeable enough to pioneer a new section, please do, even if you only know enough to to add a sentence or two. Kaimakides (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Needs History

this page needs information on the history of the nlrb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.136.180 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I rearranged a few small bits into a history and added info on Leon Despres. But it still needs a better history section. Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure for the following comments on the Landrum-Griffin Act (or LMRDA) of 1959 and Public Law 93-360: I work in an NLRB field office. The LMRDA amendments are regarded as

closing alleged “loopholes” in the secondary boycott provisions; the addition of a publicity proviso to Section 8(b)(4)(D); the addition of Section 8(b)(7); prohibited so-called “hot cargo” agreements in Section 8(e), with the exception of the construction and garment industries; and added Section 8(f) which permitted prehire agreements in the construction industry and agreements in the construction industry which required membership in a labor organization after the 7th day following the beginning of employment.

"Overview of the NLRB and NLRA" (PDF). American Bar Association: A-5. Retrieved 2013-09-09. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Similarly, Public Law 93-360, enacted July 26, 1974, added Section 8(g) requiring 10-day notification of unions' intention to strike or picket at any health care institution and Section 19 concerning the ability of employees with religious convictions to remain nonmembers but pay equivalent sums as a member's dues and fees.

Controversies Section / Controversies in the News

By statute, the NLRB has five members, but currently there are only two members. The ability of the board to act without a quorum is being challenged in court. These facts are not in this article, but with some effort they can be established and included. The US Supreme Court may invalidate all decisions of the NLRB made with the two remaining members, causing a lot of problems. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about NLRB. I heard a political ad demonizing it. I'm surprised there isn't a Controversies/Opposition section in this article. - 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are you surprised? The whole article is in poor shape, barely above stub-quality. No one is working to improve it. - Tim1965 (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading about some controversial aspects of the NRLB in the news of late. For example, see: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/29/labor-board-facing-possible-shutdown-over-union-rule-dispute/?test=latestnews. There is also the fairly recent issue of the Boeing decision where the board ruled against Boeing because they opened a new plant in NC (or was it SC?). Is anyone going to have a problem if I want to add some material related to these matters to this page? I ask because my efforts thus far in other areas seem to be unwanted. If people are going to complain here I will go find something else to do. Thanks. --News Historian (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Nearly every government agency is involved in controversy. But their articles do not discuss these issues, for the most part, because Wikipedia is not a news site. Furthermore, the NLRB has been involved in tens of thousands of controversies in its history. Almost none are mentioned here, because Wikipedia is not a news site. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I know wikipedia is not a news site but there are lots of places where notable controversies are covered as you know. Do you adamantly object to the inclusion of notable controversies on this page? I agree that we would have to establish what the threshold for "notable" in this context is because we obviously don't want to cover every little item. Perhaps I will propose something here on talk regarding the Boeing decision and see what you think. OK? --News Historian (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We should cover the Boeing controversy as well as the disputed appointment that Obama made while the Seante was in session.Basil rock (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion about including information regarding controversies, and particularly Basil rock's note that the dispute over recent appointments to the Board should be added to the article. This addition hasn't yet been made and I'd like to help if I can. I'll gather up some recent news pieces and in a few days will post here what I'm able come up with. One note, I work for The Heritage Foundation so I may have a potential conflict of interest in editing articles such as this one, due to that I'd prefer only to make suggestions on the talk page and offer resources where I'm able. Thanks. Kalkaska sand (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I've been able to put together for the end of "Board members":

On January 4, 2012, Obama announced recess appointments to three seats on the board: Sharon Block, Terence F. Flynn, and Richard Griffin. The appointments were criticized by Republicans, including the House Speaker John Boehner, as unconstitutional and "a brazen attempt to undercut the role of the Senate to advise and consent the executive branch on appointments", according to The New York Times. Although made as recess appointments, critics questioned their legality, arguing that Congress had not officially been in recess as pro forma sessions had been held. Former U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese stated that in his opinion, since the appointments were made when the Senate was "demonstrably not in recess" they represented "a constitutional abuse of a high order." On January 12, 2012 the U.S. Justice Department released a memo stating that appointments made during pro forma sessions are supported by the Constitution and precedent.

If this looks ok to add to the article, I'd be grateful if you'd do so. Also, I've been considering my COI situation some more and think it's more like an ideological interest. Suggestions welcome. Thanks. Kalkaska sand (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Since no-one has weighed in here, and nothing about the dispute has been added to the article in the meantime, I've decided to make this addition. Thanks. Kalkaska sand (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick note... I'm not 100% sure of the wording of the last sentence. For those who don't know basic civics very well, they may not realize that the US Justice Department is a part of the Executive Branch, and therefore works directly for the President. In other words, the party that created the controversy is also interpreting the law allowing them to do so. That doesn't seem to come through here, making it easy to infer that a governmental agency with authority has settled the controversy, which did not happen. I'd also like to question the necessity of stating that President Bush declined to nominate several people to the NLRB. He declined to nominate millions, if not billions of them. This makes it sound as if he had a list to work off of, and decided to go against the grain. 130.76.96.149 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• The latest GOP assault on the 99 percent salon.com "The little-noticed National Labor Relations Board has become red meat for Republican crowds in South Carolina".84.152.62.160 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I work in an NLRB field office. The pending U.S. Supreme Court case NLRB v. Noel Canning needs addressed (and a full page of its own), as it deals with the constitutionality of when and whether or not the President has the authority to make recess appointments (i.e., appointments without the consent of the Senate). In Noel Canning the D.C. Circuit found that the President has authority to make appointments without the consent of the Senate only during an inter-session recess, as opposed to an intra-session recess. See also NLRB v. New Vista Nursing Home where the Fourth Circuit found the President unconstitutionally appointed controversial former Board member Craig Becker on 26 August 2011. Other Circuits have found in favor of the government. The Board has made over 1,500 published and unpublished decisions since Becker's appointment and attempted to rulemaking to require employers to post notices of employees' rights and decrease the time to election from the filing of a representation petition. Both rulemaking decisions were found unlawful by Circuit Courts and the Board has suspended their implementation. The parties briefs in Noel Canning are due later this year. The implications of a Supreme Court decision enforcing the Fourth and D.C. Circuits are far-reaching, as it could invalidate all presidential recess appointments for the entire United States Government, not just the NLRB. The Department of Justice, an executive agency like the NLRB, is also involved in the litigation. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has a list of court decisions against the NLRB involving the recess appointments that it views as important at http://www.chamberlitigation.com/recess-appointments-litigation-resource-page. Some may consider these pro-business and, therefore anti-labor decisions. A list of pro-labor decisions is likely available elsewhere.

References

Reorganization of "Board Members" and "General Counsel" Sections

Based on the way these sections appear to address only current "controversies" it may be best to combine them into a section of "Recent Developments". Otherwise, the sections may read better if they discuss the different purposes of the General Counsel and Board members, and outline significant people who have held the positions and there accomplishments at the NLRB.

Centered? How to get left justification back

I made an edit to add a sentence about today's US Court of Appeals decision invalidating Obama's recess appointments. Now the page is centered and has lost some formatting. Can someone fix this? r3 (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Nevermind. The problem went away, even though I don't see any change in the page history.

• Wikipedia is having some technical problems today. It's happening to hundreds of thousands of pages. - Tim1965 (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

copy edits and expansion 1965- present needed

i flagged the page for issues I see :

• lede,
• tone/verbosity, and
• undue length of sub sections within "history", for example 1935–1939 seems excessively long.
• Modern history after 1965 is completely lacking.

I see two sections overlapping, but didnt fuse them (which would be best): one originally named "Obama admin controversy" and "Quorum issues". I renamed them without weaseling for plain precision. I moved one under history (2007-2013: Lack of quorum) and left one under the board members: 2007-2013: Unoccupied board seats.

--Wuerzele (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The most glaring problem at this point is the empty §. It is associated with the gradual collapse of collective bargaining in the US which was quite strong at the beginning of this period (1966) and essentially relegated to a rump, largely composed of government and a few feckless remaining trade unions by 2007. Collective bargaining utterly failed to make the transition to a higher skilled workforce which deplored collective action, mooting the purpose of the NLRB. However a list of the personnel of the board in this time should be easy to assemble and the provenance of same likely will adequately reflect these facts and the character of the larger process in this phase of the Capitalism whose name likely dare not be mentioned as the root cause, its tightening of control which in the earlier period was weak enough to have given rise to the board but subsequently relegated it having defeated collective action at its source. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Also such a list will likely show the gradual attrition that lead to the quorum issue in the next §. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Labor Relations Board. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022015004/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-announces-recess-appointments-key-administration-positions to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-announces-recess-appointments-key-administration-positions

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I was wrongfully removed from the united state postal service and I have been on Lwop for ten months I'm out on retaliation I need someone to talk to please

wrongfully removed 2600:6C51:627F:F53F:31EB:793C:1182:E0E7 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have the papers from the union who is willing to give me back my payback and transfer but still not at work and my benefits are about to be gone

Retaliation 2600:6C51:627F:F53F:31EB:793C:1182:E0E7 (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Wrongfully removed after 18years of service

if possible I can be reached at 13237435100 I was working in the city of bell California LANDC facility 2600:6C51:627F:F53F:31EB:793C:1182:E0E7 (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)