Roll Call has a story discussing the role of organized labor groups in the Pennsylvania Senate primary race between Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA.) It discusses the role that the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act plays in the race. While Senator Specter came out strongly in opposition to this card check legislation, he has been keen to express his interest in putting forward an alternative version of the bill.

In reference to the bill, the head of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, Bill George, says that labor’s highest priority is “…like water over the damn,” [sic] George added:

That first bill’s gone and consequently, it’s time to move forward. And Arlen Specter was very instrumental with other Senators getting an agreement.

What agreement?

We’ve heard a lot of discussion about a possible alternative-EFCA bill, but any proposal based on the fundamentally flawed EFCA would be devastating to employers and employees alike. If an agreement has been reached, why is nothing is available on it? As we enter the campaign season, we hope that maneuvering over versions of a bill that would cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs doesn’t become part of a political strategy to woo one key interest. Any elected official should soundly reject the Employee Free Choice Act, in any form.

Sen. Orrin Hatch held a conference call with bloggers at noon today to talk about health care legislation and offer his critique of the possibility of Senate Democrats using reconciliation to push through a bill despite the public’s overwhelming opposition. (See the Senator’s Washington Post op-ed, “Reconciliation on health care would be an assault to the democratic process.”)

We took the opportunity to ask for the Senator’s thoughts on the possibility of President Obama making a recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. On Feb. 9th, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on Becker’s nomination by a bipartisan vote of 52-33.

Sen. Hatch:

When you have a clear cut vote like that, the President shouldn’t do it, should not recess appoint him. If he does …

The man is off the wall. He’s very smart, I mean, I don’t mean to demean him. He’s a smart man. In fact that’s one of the problems. He will do any thing to help the SEIU and the AFL-CIO. Anything!

And that includes doing by regulation at the NLRB that which you could never get through legislation, and once they do that, I think it would be not only unconstitutional, but, you know, illegal, but it would take years all the way through the Supreme Court to change it. And that’s what they’re up to.

I can’t believe the president would put Becker up there, knowing how very …That was even a bipartisan vote against Becker, by the way, and I’d be very surprised if he did that.

Now, I don’t dislike the man personally. I dislike his views. He’s a smart guy, there’s no question about it. But he is an ideologue, there’s no question about that. He’s going to do whatever those big unions want. And, you know, they want power, more than anything else, and that’s what they’re going to give him if he’s recess appointed.

The audio is here.

This week’s meeting of the AFL-CIO’s executive council in Orlando elicits journalistic reports on how Big, Used-to-be-Bigger Labor will respond to its political failures.

Associated Press, “Organized labor’s agenda hits roadblock; what now?”

Prospects for a health overhaul have faded. Even slimmer are the chances of achieving labor’s chief goal, passage of a bill making it easier for unions to organize workers. A bipartisan jobs bill passed this week by the Senate drew tepid praise from the AFL-CIO president, Richard Trumka, who called it a “Band-Aid on an amputated limb” - far short of what unions wanted.

This wasn’t what unions expected a year ago after spending more than $400 million to help elect Obama and increase the size of Democratic majorities in the Senate and House.

Bloomberg, “Unions Regroup After Stunned by Losses Under Obama, Democrats“:

March 1 (Bloomberg) — William George, president of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, blames the card-check bill. Alan Hughes, AFL-CIO chief in Arkansas, blames Wal-Mart. Charlie Flemming, a union leader in Atlanta, blames Democratic politicians.

As they meet in Orlando, Florida, this week to plan their 2010 political campaign, union leaders are reeling from a succession of defeats they never expected after helping President Barack Obama and the Democrats win elections in 2008.

What now? Well, the strategy hasn’t really changed despite the setbacks: Rely on government spending and legislation to rescue them. Last week, AFL-CIO activists rallied in Orlando:

Contending that government investment swiftly saves jobs and stimulates the economy, union leaders rallied on the steps of Orlando City Hall to urge support for a new federal jobs bill, one that would push money more quickly to state and local government workers.

Paul Wilson, president of the Central Florida AFL-CIO union, and organizers with the AFSCME public service workers union urged Congress to invest in jobs in public service, especially since Florida’s state government is facing as much as a $3 billion budget shortfall.

Vice President Joe Biden speaks to the AFL-CIO leadership this afternoon at Disney World. We’ll be looking for the promises of a government rescue for labor, comments on the nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, a renewed vow of support for the Employee Free Choice Act, and any reference to “black shirts.”

From Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, a statement after the failed cloture vote on the nomination of SEIU and AFL-CIO associate counsel Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board:

It is reprehensible that a minority in the U.S. Senate has blocked an up-or-down vote on Craig Becker, nominated seven months ago by President Obama to serve on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Once again, a Republican-led filibuster has put political interests over the needs of America’s working families. For more than two years, the NLRB has had only two of its five members.  Without a fully staffed NLRB, working families face a major disadvantage in winning justice in the workplace. [Our emphasis]

Trumka’s counting on  short memories to claim the moral and political high ground, but it’s the usual bluster and bunk. History shows that the AFL-CIO’s leadership doesn’t care about process or vacancies, only about getting pro-union members onto the NLRB.

On January 25, 2008, President George W. Bush announced his intent to nominate three members to the National Labor Relations Board: Robert J. Battista, Gerald Morales, and Dennis P. Walsh. Battista, a Republican, had previously been confirmed by the Senate and served through Dec. 16, 2007. Walsh, a Democrat, had served on the NLRB through a recess appointment through Dec. 31, 2007. Morales, a Republican, would have been new to the board. (See NLRB service list.)

None of these three candidates were given a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate, leaving just two members on the board. One of the most vociferous voices against filling those vacancies? The AFL-CIO. From then President John Sweeney, reviling two of the nominees in a Jan. 28, 2008, news release:

The Bush Administration’s bury-bad-news-on-a-Friday-afternoon nominations to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are a blatant attempt to keep a Labor board with an unbalanced, anti-worker bias, and they would be poisonous to America’s working families.

Chairman Robert Battista has been Bush’s point man for his war on workers. President Bush’s renomination of Battista for another 5-year term is a clear effort to stack the deck in favor of Big Business over working people, as is his nomination of Gerald Morales, an attorney who has spent his professional career representing management and has no history defending workers’ rights.

So Sweeney and the AFL-CIO were perfectly happy with NLRB vacancies two years ago, it’s just the appointees they didn’t like (and maligned).

In 2008, the recess appointments of Bush’s three nominees were prevented by the Senate Majority’s decision to hold regular pro forma sessions, thereby not going into recess, in the process ensuring the continuation of the vacancies. The AFL-CIO did not complain about the vacancies then. And today? Trumka: “We support President Obama’s expressed willingness to make recess appointments of critical posts in the federal government if that’s what it takes to get around minority delay and obstruction.”

Bloomberg, “Obama Choice for Labor Board Blocked as Business Groups Lobby“:

Feb. 10 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama’s nomination of union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board is on the verge of collapse after U.S. business groups successfully pressured lawmakers to stall the nomination.

The Senate voted 52-33, eight votes short of the 60 required, to end debate and act on the nomination of Becker, who has been awaiting confirmation for more than six months. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers attacked Becker’s academic writings on giving labor unions more power and sent letters to senators urging them to block the appointment.

• Washington Times, “Labor nominee blocked in Senate“: “In a vivid display of President Obama’s diminished clout, the Senate’s newest Republican and two veteran Democrats Tuesday helped block Mr. Obama’s bid to fill a key labor post with a nominee they considered too cozy with unions.”
• Washington Examiner, “GOP blocks Obama labor board nominee“
• Politico, “Senate stops Craig Becker nomination“

A skilled satirist at the AFL-CIO responds to Sen. Ben Nelson’s announcement he would vote against the nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board by questioning the Nebraska Democrat’s sanity. Guffaw and chortle. The post, “Senate Dem. Nelson Joins Republican Filibuster Against Obama’s NLRB Choice,” embraces the increasingly frequent line of attack that Becker’s nomination has been obstructed, which we take to be an implied argument for a recess appointment: “Let’s not forget Republican Senate leaders blocked a vote on Becker for nearly a year and then last week rushed to seat newly elected Scott Brown (R-Mass.) to give them the 41 votes need to keep a filibuster alive if all voted in a bloc.” Our emphasis.

No, not “nearly a year.” Why would the AFL-CIO makes juch a flat-out, easily checked misstatement? The White House announced the President’s intent to nominate Becker on April 24, 2009, but it only forwarded the nomination to the Senate on July 9, 2009.

See also FoxNews.com, “Senate Expected to Reject Obama’s Labor Board Nominee”

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) on Monday became the first Democrat to announce his intention of voting against cloture on the nomination of SEIU associate counsel Craig Becker to serve on the National Labor Relations Board.

The vote is now tentatively scheduled for 5 p.m. today.

From Sen. Nelson’s statement:

Mr. Becker’s previous statements strongly indicate that he would take an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB, and that he would pursue a personal agenda there, rather than that of the Administration,” said Senator Nelson. “This is of great concern, considering that the Board’s main responsibility is to resolve labor disputes with an even and impartial hand. In addition, the nominee’s statements fly in the face of Nebraska’s Right to Work laws, which have been credited in part with our excellent business climate that has attracted employers and many good jobs to Nebraska. Considering these matters, I will oppose the upcoming cloture motion and the nomination.

Sam Stein at The Huffington Post reports an unhappy reaction from the AFL-CIO, which has also employed Becker as an attorney.

“It’s a shame and a disappointment that Senator Nelson is willing to continue to leave working families without a fully staffed NLRB,” said Eddie Vale, a spokesman for the AFL-CIO. “Becker is an eminently qualified nominee. Its pretty confusing and circular logic that Nelson contends he wouldn’t represent the administration’s agenda, when he was nominated by the administration, twice.”

It really doesn’t matter whose agenda it is that Becker would push, it’s the agenda itself. Becker is on record saying he does not believe employers have any role to play when unions attempt to organize their workplace, even to the point of preventing business owners from exercising their rights of free speech.

During the confirmation hearing Tuesday, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) was the chief Republican critic of Craig Becker’s nomination to the National Labor Relations Board. Becker, an associate counsel for the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, tried to assure the committee that as a board member he would not try to implement the more radical, anti-employer views expressed in his academic writings.

Isakson said, in effect, yes, we’ve heard those kind of assurances before, and we got burned. He outlined the criticism in the subsequent news release with the sub-headline, “Concerned Becker Will Use Position to Unfairly Favor Labor Unions Just as New Nominees to National Mediation Board Have Done“:

Isakson noted that pro-union members of another federal labor panel – the National Mediation Board – are also using their positions to impose pro-union rules. In 2009, the Senate confirmed two of President Obama’s nominees to the National Mediation Board only to watch them overturn 75 years of precedent by fiat just weeks after their confirmation.

“The actions of these new members of the National Mediation Board are nothing less than manipulation of the federal regulatory process to favor one special interest group,” Isakson said. “I remain concerned that Mr. Becker will follow their lead if he wins confirmation and compromise fairness to grant favors to the labor unions that currently employ him.”

Ranking Member Mike Enzi (R-WY) made a similar point in his committee statement, saying there was good evidence the nominees to the National Mediation Board were not forthright before the committee:

Last year this HELP Committee confirmed 2 nominees to the NMB. Some members, including me, specifically asked each of them about their position on changing the way a majority in a unionization election is measured. In response, both of these nominees testified that they had no pre-conceived agenda to alter rules that have been in place for 75 years. Yet, practically before the ink had dried on their confirmations, these two nominees began pushing through a regulation that is a wholesale reversal of those rules to tilt the playing field to the benefit of labor unions.

The Communications Workers of America sent out an e-mail alert directed to membership Tuesday, “CWA Pushes to Fill NLRB.” It’s a revealing discussion of the politics and lobbying surrounding the nomination of SEIU associate counsel Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.

The CWA tells its members:

• “It’s all hands on deck as we plan to push this week for a Senate committee to move on President Obama’s nominations to the National Labor Relations Board.”
• “The NRLB is a critical institution when it comes to protecting workers’ rights - especially since the loss of a Senate seat in Massachusetts makes passage of the Employee Free Choice Act virtually impossible.”
• “The GOP is threatening a filibuster and we can only be sure of 60 votes if we hold the vote before Brown is sworn in on February 11.”
• “The HELP Committee is tentatively scheduled to take up Becker’s nomination this Tuesday and vote on Thursday. Then Sen. Reid has to schedule a cloture vote Friday.”
• “CWAers are asking their Senators to urge Senator Reid to stick to this schedule and vote for cloture. This is the only way we can have a 2-1 Democratic majority on the NLRB.”

Short version: We need Becker on the NLRB because we can’t pass the Employee Free Choice Act, and we can’t confirm him if Sen. Brown from Massachusetts is seated, so let’s make sure the Senate rushes through the confirmation vote.

We’ve put the entire portion of the e-mail alert below in the extended entry.CWA Pushes to Fill NLRB

It’s all hands on deck as we plan to push this week for a Senate committee to move on President Obama’s nominations to the National Labor Relations Board. President Obama has nominated three people to the NLRB - Democrats Craig Becker and Mark Gaston Pearce and Republican Brian Hayes. (By law, the sitting president appoints three members from his party and two members from the opposition party; currently, one Democrat and one Republican sit on the board and there are three vacancies.)

The NRLB is a critical institution when it comes to protecting workers’ rights - especially since the loss of a Senate seat in Massachusetts makes passage of the Employee Free Choice Act virtually impossible.

But Republicans have pushed back against President Obama’s efforts to fill the NLRB. In particular, Republicans - and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - have pledged to oppose the nomination of Becker, who is the associate general counsel of SEIU. The GOP is threatening a filibuster and we can only be sure of 60 votes if we hold the vote before Brown is sworn in on February 11.

But first, Becker’s nomination needs to clear the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee. A “hold” by John McCain through the 2009 session of the Senate forced the White House to resubmit the Becker nomination. The HELP Committee is tentatively scheduled to take up Becker’s nomination this Tuesday and vote on Thursday. Then Sen. Reid has to schedule a cloture vote Friday. CWAers are asking their Senators to urge Senator Reid to stick to this schedule and vote for cloture. This is the only way we can have a 2-1 Democratic majority on the NLRB.

The Senate on Monday voted 60-32 on a partyline vote (eight Republicans not voting) to invoke cloture on the nomination of Patricia Smith, President Obama’s choice to become solicitor at the Department of Labor.  Smith drew opposition from Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), the ranking Republican on the Senate HELP Committee, because of misstatements about her record as New York Commissioner of Labor about a wage compliance program that, he contends, sidled up too closely to the labor unions. Enzi outlines his opposition starting on Page S376 of The Congressional Record, and he has posted additional documentation on the committee’s website.

The political maneuvering is interesting. The partyline vote enabled Senate Democrats to move Smith’s nomination ahead, and was possible because of the vote of interim Sen. Paul Kirk (D-MA). His Republican replacement, Senator-elect Scott Brown will be sworn in on Feb. 11 and could have potentially stopped Smith’s confirmation by preventing the 60th vote for cloture.

We’re likely seeing a political replay with the nomination of SEIU counsel Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has scheduled Becker’s confirmation hearing for this afternoon at 4 p.m., and the committee vote to follow Thursday morning at 10 a.m. The rush is on to get his nomination to the floor before Scott Brown is sworn in as Senator.

The National Association of Manufacturers and other major trade associations joined in a letter to HELP Committee members opposing Becker’s nomination. Excerpt:

Mr. Becker’s unorthodox views have been demonstrated through his previous written commentary of the National Labor Relations Act, the law he would be charged with interpreting and enforcing should he be confirmed. Many of his beliefs would disrupt years of established precedent and the delicate balance in current labor law. We have significant concerns with the Board’s ability to radically interpret existing labor law should Mr. Becker be confirmed.

So we expect to see the cloture vote held early next week, at the latest February 10.

For more on Becker’s nomination, see this earlier posts.

More…

• Associated Press, “Over GOP Protests, Democrats Advance Labor Nominee“
• AFL-CIO Now blog, “Senate Breaks Blockade on Labor Solicitor Nominee,” with a hyperbolic Richard Trumka endorsement.
• Guess this attorney was wrong. Weekly Standard, Jan. 16, “Kirk Can’t Vote After Tuesday.”