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.

The Washington Post today takes an editorial shot at the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers for opposing any talk of legislative compromise in Congress over the Employee Free Choice Act.

From the lead editorial, “The Imperfect Union Bill”:

WE HAVE SAID before that the Employee Free Choice Act is a flawed solution to a real problem: unfair barriers in the way of union organizing. We have been critical of the labor movement for its reluctance to consider alternatives that could level the playing field between labor and management. So we have, we hope, some standing to criticize a leading management group for its absolutist stance against not only the Employee Free Choice Act as written but also against compromise proposals. Instead of engaging in a good-faith effort to fix the problem, the group, the Coalition for a Democratic Workforce, chooses to deny that there is a problem.

A few quick thoughts:

This is a classic example of Washington political thinking that elevates process over substance, viewing compromise and consensus as valuable in and of themselves. To the vast majority of NAM members, businesses small and large, the possibility of forced unionization and a government-imposed binding arbitration are matters of life and death. A “compromise” looks like, “Please, just kill us a little bit…later.”

And who is it exactly doing the “compromising” up on Capitol Hill? Senator Tom Harkin compromising with Sen. Arlen Specter? The AFL-CIO compromising with the Teamsters? Starbucks with Costco?

As for denying there isn’t a problem, here are the basic facts from the National Labor Relations Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

• Union membership is on the rise (400,000 new members last year)
• Unions are winning most of the elections (unions won 66.8 percent of all elections in 2008)
• Elections take place in a timely manner (94% within 56 days)

Organized labor does not win every union organizing election, and that’s “the problem” they want the Employee Free Choice Act to fix. But labor has never engaged in good faith discussion about the issue, starting with its decision to dishonestly represent the bill as “free choice.”

Given that the legislation is a raw power grab by organized labor, where’s there any room for compromise?

We close with these thoughts from a Democratic Senator known for his belief in good faith negotiations and willingness to broker compromise, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE):

You take away the arbitration issue, and you still have the “card check,” so that doesn’t work. You take away the ‘card check’ and you still have the arbitration problem. And if both go away, you’re left with nothing. It’s a fool’s errand to do this. I just don’t see an agreement happening.

The Senate convenes at 10 a.m. today with talking anticipated to continue on S. 3268, the anti-speculation bill. The Senate did unanimously invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to debate on Tuesday. Key points:

Wall Street Journal, “Bill to Curb Energy Speculation Advances in Senate“:

The bill voted Tuesday would order the regulator of the commodities markets, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to eliminate what lawmakers call excessive speculation in petroleum and natural gas by, among other things, limiting the amount of trades by certain market participants.

Unless party leaders reach a compromise in the interim, the next key vote is likely Thursday, when Republicans may block the bill from moving ahead for a final vote if Democrats block votes on proposals to increase domestic exploration and production.

And a good, balanced, fairly reported story from NPR.

Meanwhile, Politico, “‘Gang of 10′ fights for increased drilling“:

Tuesday evening, five Democratic senators met with five of their Republican colleagues to hash out a plan that would include far more drilling — from the land and from the sea — than would be allowed under any current Democratic proposal.

“There’s going to be substantially more drilling and substantially more conservation,” Sen. Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) said of the plan her moderate colleagues are hoping to cobble together. “Democratic leaders are going to be pushed, and Republican leaders are going to be pushed.”

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said the new “Gang of 10” is just trying to overcome some “strongly drawn” battle lines that prevent party leaders from finding common ground.

“We’re not undermining leadership,” Nelson said. “This is not a coup.”

Good luck.