1. The National Labor Relations Board consists of five members, who serve staggered terms and who are appointed by the president of the United States. How do you think the president’s political outlook plays into who is appointed to sit on the board?
2. How might this impact the decisions made by the board from presidential term to term.
1. The National Labor Relations Board is responsible for enforcing the protections which is fundamental to the growing economy and aims to create jobs for middle class. The Presidents choses his preferred nominees so that they promote better wages and conditions for the workers of America. The political outlook of president to select the candidates is that the President want cooperation to advances the priorities of the middle class (Jackson, 2013). If the nominees selected by the President are chosen the US Senate, then NLRB would continue with a liberal; union friendly majority. Some believes that in certain areas of NLRB law and policy,the ideology of board member can serve as predictive signal of the choice of that member. Hence, it can be predicted that members who represented management before appointment to board, would vote in favour of management interest and according to the management’s concern. The voting for legal rules and policies would favour organized labor can be anticipated as expected from the NLRB. Moreover, it is also opposed in the sense that, the decisions of are not influenced by political ideology NLRB (Kearney&Mareschal, 2014). The notion of the politicized NLRB has been questioned and in study it is found that there is no significant relationship between political composition of board and incidence of inherent determinations. The President feels to fill the board with members with philosophy of labour, in order to keep the views of the political party in power. the Democratic appointees are more likely to vote in favour of labour.
The public pensions are underfunded because, the state government politicians want to use that money for something that has immediate return. The main reason behind this situation is that conflict between state politicians and government employee union.By restoring the underfunded workers’ pension programs, it is important to undertake moderate and common-sense step, instead of drastic change (Mcnichol&Lav 2011). The state should make some legislative changes. It can increase plan contributions and increase the contribution of employees. It is expected that if state and localities boost their pension contribution by 5% of the budget average, then major progress can be made in order to restore pension plans. It is expected that investment returns will save the politicians from their irresponsibility and employees from the poverty. The union leaders agreed to risky strategy and feel safe under state laws that protect public employee pension from future cuts(Dorfman, 2014). If there is no remedy to come out from the underfund situation, then it can be said that there will be poor returns of investment; longer lives in retirement. The courts will force the states to pay up sufficient later to keep promises. The gambling of politician and union leader would push the cost off to the future generation, which is not ethically acceptable. It is better to adjust the pension plan according to the economic reality rather than political agendas.
Dorfman, J. (2014). Forbes Welcome. Forbes.com. Retrieved 22 August 2016, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/09/11/public-pensions-are-still-marching-to-their-death/#1a36945f6d1c
Jackson, D. (2013). Obama makes new NLRB nominations. USA TODAY. Retrieved 22 August 2016, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/16/obama-nlrb-nominees-senate-nuclear-option/2522819/
Kearney, R. C., &Mareschal, P. M. (2014). Labor relations in the public sector. crc Press.
Mcnichol, E. &Lav, I. (2011). A Common-Sense Strategy for Fixing State Pension Problems in Tough Economic Times | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Cbpp.org. Retrieved 22 August 2016, from https://www.cbpp.org/research/a-common-sense-strategy-for-fixing-state-pension-problems-in-tough-economic-times