By Justin Hakes    2/15/2012

2011 marked a year of unprecedented controversy for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).  The Board sent shockwaves through the business community with its complaint against Boeing, finalized a hotly-contested rule expediting union organizing elections, and triggered a host of lawsuits.  The agency contributed greatly to the uncertainty felt by many employers about the regulatory climate, and left no stone unturned in tilting the playing field against job creators and towards organized labor.

Fast forward to February 2012, and the NLRB is getting a 5% “raise”?  That’s the implication anyway from the proposed federal budget that would expand the agency’s funding to $292.8 million, a $14 million increase from the previous year according to BNA's Daily Labor Report (subscription-required).

Controversy aside, with few exceptions the NLRB’s workload has generally been constant or decreasing over the past decade, whether you are talking the number of charges filed, elections, or decisions.  During an era of budget belt-tightening, then, what possible rationale exists for giving more taxpayer dollars to an increasingly controversial agency with decreasing obligations?