As noted at Shopfloor yesterday, many labor groups are pressuring President Obama to seat Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) via a recess appointment, despite objections from the Senate. Some have questioned the validity of the Board’s current quorum and have argued that with only two members the Board is crippled. However, if the Senate truly feels that the Board needs an unquestionable quorum to be successful, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), who serves at the Ranking Member on the Senate HELP Committee, lays out an easier option: Confirm the two pending nominees.

From a Feb. 9 floor statement:

I wish to point out that there is another way. There at three current vacancies at the National Labor Relations Board, and the HELP Committee has unanimously approved the President’s other two nominees. If the Senate wanted to confirm two new members to the Board, it could have easily done so today. [February 9, 2010] In fact, it could have done so last year. One of these nominees, Mark Pearce [a Democrat], is a labor-side attorney who has spent his career representing labor unions. The other is a Republican nominee with management-side experience in addition to tenures on the staff of the National Labor Relations Board and in the Senate as my labor policy director, Brian Hayes. Yet these nominees did not inspire objections from HELP members on either side of the aisle.

It is disingenuous to suggest that the only way that the Board can function properly is through the controversial action of a recess appointment. If the Senate wants to ensure the effective operation of the NLRB, Senator should move to confirm the other two nominees now awaiting confirmation.

Over the weekend Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, made several media appearances to stress that big labor bosses remain steadfast in their commitment to pushing the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act in Congress, the public’s steadfast opposition notwithstanding.

On Bill Moyers Journal, Trumka stated that that the unions have 59 votes lined up in the Senate right now to pass the bill. It’s a strange count, much higher than ours. Does this statement from Mr. Trumka mean that Senator Blanche Lincoln has changed her mind and will vote for the bill? Will Sens. Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson do the same? We think that it’s wishful thinking from desperate labor leaders.

A comment made by Mr. Trumka during the “Last Word “ with CNN’s John King also seems intentionally vague. In the interview he said, “I think we’ll get health care done and I think we’ll get labor law reform done before the year’s up.” Done how? With Congressional action unlikely on the Employee Free Choice Act, perhaps he means enacting its provisions through the National Labor Relations Board. That’s why some in the U.S. are rushing through the nomination of AFL-CIO associate counsel Craig Becker to the NLRB, so the board’s new majority can indeed get “labor law reform done before the year’s up.”

The NAM is working with other employer groups to urge the Senate to reject the controversial nomination of Craig Becker to the NLRB. This morning a letter was sent to the Senate from 23 associations taking the rare step of opposing his nomination.

The Department of Labor today released its annual report on union membership. The data show that while the number of union members is dropping, so too is the proportion of union members in the workforce. The figures for private sector union membership in today’s report decreased from 7.6 percent in 2008 to 7.2 percent last year and down from 11.4 percent to 10.9 percent for the manufacturing workforce.

Is this trend one that should be countered by forcing more people into union membership? That seems to be the argument that Labor Secretary Hilda Solis derives from the new figures, in a statement calling for passage of the jobs-killing Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). She says:

As workers across the country have seen their real and nominal wages decline as a result of the recession, these numbers show a need for Congress to pass legislation to level the playing field to enable more American workers to access the benefits of union membership. This report makes clear why the administration supports the Employee Free Choice Act.

It’s clear that union leaders and their allies are frustrated with the lack of progress to enact their agenda and the fact that fewer workers are choosing to join a union. However, that’s no cause to radically overhaul our labor law system at the expense of our economy and workers’ rights.

This renewed effort by labor leaders and the Administration to enact the jobs killing card check legislation is certainly cause for concern. While this legislation could reasonably be expected to reverse the downward trend of union membership, it comes with high price tag: it would result in the loss of 600,000 jobs in the first year alone. As policymakers turn their focus to job creation efforts, it is contradictory to advocate proposals that will instead destroy jobs – and force people into union membership against their will.

In the aftermath of yesterday’s election in Massachusetts there have been much speculation on how organized labor groups will respond in light of public repudiation of their agenda. BusinessWeek reports AFL-CIO’s Bill Samuels commenting, “Labor leaders are ‘taking stock’ of their agenda today.”

You would hope so.

The message sent by voters in Massachusetts, one echoing across the country, is that the public wants Washington to slow down and do things differently. Labor leaders have insisted all through this Congress that the anti-democratic Employee Free Choice Act is their No. 1 priority, recently claiming again that the bill would pass in the first quarter of this year. But recent polling and the last night’s results – better than any poll — show no public desire for EFCA and the forced unionization it would bring.

Roll Call further reports unnamed union officials saying they plan to “resume closed-door negotiations with Democratic Congressional leaders later this week to discuss the status of EFCA and the now-fragile health care legislation.”

Discussions, OK, but negotiations? The better choice for workers, the economy, and to demonstrate respect for the public is to shelve the Employee Free Choice Act. Even if it’s the unions’ priority, it’s not America’s.

The Washington Post ran a piece today that focused on an interview with Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. Of course, the most controversial labor issue was brought up: the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

The Secretary asserts that in “many cases, in many cases, workers have been disadvantaged.” She claims, “They’ve been intimidated, they’ve been harassed, and we have case after case after case that we can look at.”

She then makes an argument popular with organized labor, describing “barriers” that have been put in place “over the past few years”. Well, what precisely? Why wasn’t the Secretary pressed for specifics? One can only assume that she is referring to decisions of the National Labor Relations Board. The President has already nominated two individuals to the board who will significantly change the dynamics of the board for years to come.

If there are legitimate violations of the National Labor Relations Act, then let’s have the NLRB rule on them. If there are other barriers, let’s have the NLRB review them. Otherwise, let’s talk facts: Workers who wish to become union members are able to do so. Last year alone unions saw membership increase by 400,000, unions won 67% of the secret ballot elections and these elections took place 95% of the time within 56 days.

The Workforce Fairness Institute today released the details of report today that shows that should the Employee Free Choice Act become law, labor leaders would gain an additional $320 million to spend on political activism, organizing and politicking, an amount totalling $1.75 billion over the next decade. Yes that’s billion with a “B.”

While labor bosses claim that the Employee Free Choice Act is labor law reform, this report sheds a bit more light on the true intentions of labor leaders. The Employee Free Choice Act is an attempt to skew the balance of our labor law system in order for labor unions to inflate their membership to gain increased dues revenue.

It’s clear that business-savvy labor groups are quite comfortable spending millions of their members’ hard earned dues money in their campaign to take away the secret ballots of other employees as it would result in an additional cash influx for them of over half a billion in the first year. Five percent of which would be expected to be used for political contributions. With the financial benefits so high, no wonder why union bosses are pursuing the jobs-killing legislation so aggressively.