A Democrat vs. NLRB
Finally, a Democrat puts his state and his constituents before party.
As the former chairman of the N.C. Democratic Party, I am not only disinclined to criticize organized labor, but am rather sympathetic to their cause. The bigger question at play, however, is not why one side of this argument pressed hard for job protection, but why the NLRB chose to deny another area’s competitive advantage?
The unemployment rate in South Carolina is 10.9 percent, the third highest in the United States. Unemployment in North Carolina is 10.1 percent. Washington State’s rate is 9.3 percent. In light of these statistics, the NLRB should not be denying job creation investment in any location, save for egregious violations of worker rights. This case does not qualify.
So what can be done to reverse this action? This week, Congress will consider HR 2587, the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act. This legislation states simply that its goal is to “prohibit the National Labor Relations Board from ordering any employer to close, relocate, or transfer employment…” North Carolina’s congressional delegation (including our seven Democratic Congressmen and Sen. Kay Hagan) and President Obama should support HR 2587.
Agreed. There is absolutely no reason to favor Washington over South Carolina… except, perhaps, that South Carolina is a right-to-work state and Washington isn’t, which may have been the deciding factor for the union-dependent Obamacrats.