I appreciate the link. I’d like to add a few corrections and comments.

(1) I am NOT an employee lawyer, but an employer lawyer. I DO try to write objectively, which means not always blaming unions first.

(2) The federal government is NOT posed to outlaw unionization elections, though the bill to which you refer would make them less frequent where union support is strong (over 50% willing to publicly state support). I strongly oppose several parts of this bill, including this one that requires recognition of a union based on card-check.

However, under it NLRB election procedures would be unchanged if a union only obtained public employee support between 30% and 50%. The NLRB would hold a secret-ballot election. Employees favoring the union (or not), but wishing their co-workers to have a fair, private vote, could simply say as much to the union and not sign cards — and the NLRB would conduct a secret-ballot election.

(3) I hope it came across that I view successful action by the NLRB to order the Republic plant reopened as unlikely, but conceivable as a matter of law.

I found it extremely important — and very fishy — that the guy looked like he would go his merry way making the same products, probably for the same customers, in a neighboring state, escaping the union.

There was no indication the union contract caused the company’s financial distress. It borrowed a lot to finance plant growth that looked like a very reasonable business plan a year ago, perhaps even six months ago, when business was booming, along with the housing bubble. Expectation of substantially more business, which could be handled in Chicago, may be reasonable again within six months, if federal stimulus weatherization spending causes a massive uptick in replacement window and door sales, entirely independent of a continuing new-home and home-remodeling slump.

(4) It is incorrect to think of and refer to the NLRB as “employer regulators” in the same sense as most federal regulatory agencies that dictate detailed requirements to businesses.

The NLRB regulates general rights and a process, collective bargaining, not an outcome or specific terms of employment.

It is beyond the bounds of that process to take business action that is discriminatorily designed to discourage (or encourage) union membership. That’s the law.

Likewise, the NLRB enforces the duty to bargain in good faith with properly designated union representatives, which specifically does not require agreement on any specific terms. If union costs are killing a business and it wants to move elsewhere and avoid the union, bargaining allows the union a final opportunity to correct the situation and save the jobs.

(5) Please don’t see me as an apologist for the NLRB or unions in general. But I am familiar with the agency and the law it enforces. For decades, this law was indeed the core of American labor policy. This may have had negative effects, but it also had some positive ones.

For one, most employees with union contracts were not terminable at will; today most employees are. This may seem like a fine thing for employers, but in my view is responsible for a good many frivolous discrimination charges and lawsuits, as equal employment opportunity law is misused as a substitute for the just-cause requirement found in most union agreements. And this is a more costly way to go for employers, I think.

“Employee lawyer George Lenard has put together an incredible post outlining his theory on how federal employer regulators might go about ordering a money-losing window factory in Illinois to reopen and continue losing money. With the federal government poised to outlaw unionization elections, many much smaller employers in America are likely to find themselves becoming union shops.”