Obama vetoes Republican bid to block union election rules - Yahoo News

 

(Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday vetoed a measure by Republicans in Congress that would have blocked a government labor agency's rules designed to speed up the time it takes to unionize workers.

The rules would shorten the period between a union filing a petition to represent workers and an election, from the current median of 38 days to as little as 14 days. Employers would be required to share workers' names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses with unions.

The National Labor Relations Board adopted the rules last year and they are set to take effect April 14.

The Senate and House of Representatives, voting along party lines, approved a resolution this month that would have stopped enactment of the rules.

On Tuesday Obama, following through on a threat to reject the resolution, said the rules represented modest changes that would make it easier for workers to unionize.

"Unions historically have been at the forefront of establishing things like the 40-hour work week, the weekend, child labor laws, fair benefits and decent wages," Obama said at a press conference.

The labor board still faces court challenges in Washington, D.C. and Texas over the new process from business groups who say it violates the National Labor Relations Act by not giving employers enough time to prepare for elections.

Rep. John Kline, a Minnesota Republican and chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, said in a statement that the new process would only help unions.

"With his veto, the president has endorsed an ambush election rule that will stifle employer free speech, cripple worker free choice, and jeopardize the privacy of working families," Kline said.

The NLRB and Democrats who support the rules say they were designed to rein in misconduct by a minority of employers who draw out the union election process in order to threaten and intimidate workers.

An NLRB spokeswoman declined to comment on Obama's rejection of the resolution.

(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, N.Y. and Julia Edwards in Washington; Editing by Grant McCool)

Obama vetoes Republican bid to block union election rules - Yahoo News

Obama Immigration Order Is as Legal as Bush and Reagan's Were | New Republic

 

November 19, 2014

Reagan and Bush Acted Unilaterally on Immigration, Too—for the Same Reason That Obama Will

By Danny Vinik @dannyvinik

On Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that two previous Republican presidents—Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush—had taken unilateral action to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation, and the political reaction was much less vitriolic than what Obama has faced as he prepares to make a similar move. Conservatives, notably The Atlantic's David Frum and National Review's Mark Krikorian, quickly pushed back. Frum argues that, while legal, Obama’s upcoming executive action would be an unprecedented violation of political norms. Krikorian goes further, calling it "Caesarism, pure and simple." But in the end, though they difference in their vehemence, both Krikorian and Frum’s analyses do more to reveal the flaws in the conservative position than prove the lawlessness of Obama’s upcoming action.

Krikorian and Frum’s main argument is that Reagan and Bush’s unilateral actions were simply fixes to the 1986 immigration law that granted green cards to three million undocumented immigrants. Reagan and Bush discovered that, due to an unintended consequence of that law, many spouses and kids of newly-legalized immigrants faced deportation, potentially tearing families apart. In response, Reagan and Bush implemented “cleanup measures,” as Krikorian terms them: In 1987, Reagan’s Immigration and Naturalization Service announced that kids of newly-legalized immigrants would not be deported; Bush extended those protections to spouses in 1991.

According to Krikorian and Frum, these actions reflected Congress’s intentions because the legislative branch codified Reagan and Bush’s executive action into law in 1992. “Reagan and Bush acted in conjunction with Congress and in furtherance of a congressional purpose,” Frum writes. “Nobody wanted to deport the still-illegal husband of a newly legalized wife. Reagan’s (relatively small) and Bush’s (rather larger) executive actions tidied up these anomalies.” In other words, it would be unfair if Reagan and Bush deported children and spouses of newly-legalized immigrants. In fact, Bush’s executive action was called the “family fairness” program.

In contrast, they argue, Obama’s executive action is not what Congress intended. “A new order would not further a congressional purpose,” Frum writes. “It is intended to overpower and overmaster a recalcitrant Congress.” Krikorian was even more emphatic: “Whatever their merits, the Reagan and Bush measures were modest attempts at faithfully executing legislation duly enacted by Congress. Obama’s planned amnesty decree is Caesarism, pure and simple.”

What both Frum and Krikorian’s analyses fail to explain is how Obama’s planned action is not a faithful attempt at executing the law. ….

READ MORE:   Obama Immigration Order Is as Legal as Bush and Reagan's Were | New Republic

Mr. Treasurer, whose $1,000,000 is it? The following FOIA request was made to Boone County today.

Click on the photo copy to enlarge:

Below is the Management letter from the CPA firm which initiated my inquiry into the $1,000,000.   Item # 5 is on the second page.  As before click to enlarge.

To be fair—the Treasurer/Collector did answer orally some of these questions some weeks ago.   He indicated that the amount is  possibly in the $100,000’s but not a $1,000,000 and that the amount maybe related to disputed taxes in previous years.  I made this FOIA request  based upon the size of this account and the question as to if the County, other taxing bodies, or the State actually deserves the money.  I think we all ought to wonder where our elected officials and appointed county managers are.  Why have they not asked questions?