A Hearing on NLRB Nominee Would Provide Clarity, Right?

By January 26, 2010General, Labor Unions

Sixty-six of organized labor’s allies at the universities have signed a letter supporting Becker’s nomination. They complain that “opponents have made a series of misleading and inaccurate statements about him and, in particular, about his published work. We urge anyone considering Mr. Becker’s nomination not to rely on sound bites, fragments taking out of context, and misquotations, but to actually read Mr. Becker’s scholarly writing.”

Yes, it’s the old “out of context” complaint. Because if we had the context, we would recognize that Mr. Becker really meant something else when he wrote the following in the preface to a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, “On account of the asymmetry between representation elections in the workplace and the polity, Part IV [of the article] concludes that employers should have no legally sanctioned role in union elections.”

The article is “Democracy in the Workplace: Union Representation Elections and Federal Labor Law.”

Brad Peck of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce prefers this out-of-context quote: “[The article] concludes that employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees’ election of representatives.”

So unfair! Becker really needs a forum where he can fully explain his views.

How about a confirmation hearing before the Senate HELP Committee?

Hat tip: The Truth About EFCA blog, “It’s All Academic: Profs Push NLRB Nomination.” For more posts on Becker’s nomination, go here.

Leave a Reply