Topic: CNSNews.com
Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski forward a whole bunch of baseless attacks on the National Labor Relations board in a Sept. 6 CNSNews.com column.
Blackwell and Klukowski assert that the NLRB's action against Boeing is an attempt to "dictate to a private company where they can and cannot open factories or create jobs." That's false; the NLRB complaint against Boeing alleges that the company moved jobs to South Carolina in retaliation for union employees engaging in lawful strikes in its Washington base.
The authors also claim that the NLRB is "claiming jurisdiction over St. Xavier University, saying that the school doesn’t qualify for the religious exemption to NLRB’s authority because St. Xavier is not Catholic enough." In fact, as we've previously detailed, the NLRB ruled that the school could not block faculty members from forming a union because it imposed no religious restrictions on the education they provide. The school's articles of incorporation "does not contain any reference to religion, God, Catholicism, Sisters of Mercy, or CMHE; instead it speaks only to the purpose of education," that the school "does not investigate the religious beliefs of its students, faculty, or trustees," and that it "has no requirement for faculty, including adjuncts, to espouse or emphasize Catholicism in their teachings or imbue students with the tenets of the Catholic faith."
Blackwell and Klukowski went on to claim that a recent NLRB ruling "stripp[ed] workers of the right to promptly contest the results of a vote to form a union." In fact, the ruling restores longstanding procedures on contesting union elections that both employees and the employer agreed to that were themselves overturned in a 2007 NLRB ruling.
Finally, the authors claim that "President Obama’s federal card-check legislation" would "abolish the secret ballot." In fact, the Employee Free Choice Act would have stripped employers, not workers, of the right to demand a secret ballot.
Doesn't anyone at CNS fact-check their columnists? Apparently not.
