From Diana Furchtgott Roth at the Manhattan Institute, “Why the SEIU Wants Health Reform“:

What’s the connection? The SEIU needs more new dues-paying members to pay for the retirement of current members if it is to rescue its pension plans from subpar performance. It’s a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud. With many of its members employed in health care, the union believes - not illogically - that if more Americans have health insurance, the demand for health care will expand and so will employment in the health sector.

The Senate is unlikely to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would impose mandatory arbitration and take away workers’ right to a secret ballot in union representation elections. This was first on unions’ 2009-10 wish list, and union leaders want to show that they still have political power. So they will settle instead for the health care “reform” bill.

Change to Win, the Big Labor umbrella group that includes the SEIU, has just endorsed the health care legislation. What legislation? Well, whatever it is that the House is going to vote on. The statement from CTW Chairwoman Anna Burger is sloganblatherneering:

It is time for Congress members to decide on which side of history will they stand. They must choose between working families struggling to get by and an insurance industry that puts profits before the people they are supposed to serve.

For generations, this country has known the need for reform. For the past year, we have as a nation debated and fought for real health insurance reform. Now, it’s time for Congress to deliver.

The “or else!” threat is left unsaid.

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.

The National Labor Relations Board’s Office of Public Affairs issued a news release Wednesday announcing that the NLRB was seeking a court order to force a Buffalo, N.Y., egg processing company to rehire union supporters it had fired. The release is more evidence of an NLRB under Chairman Wilma Liebman that is abandoning its official role as a disinterested, quasi-judicial agency to involve itself in politics. It’s a disturbing trend.

There are 10 news releases listed on the 2010 news release page of the NLRB. Of the five releases that deal with disputes between organized labor and employers, four report on actions the board took against the employer. The other announces a union withdrawing its request for an election. (See list in extended entry.)

We’d previously noted two other releases, one highlighting a speech in which Liebman expressed views on labor policy and the other putting her support behind the pending nominations to the NLRB. (See post, “Politicizing the NLRB.”)

Even if the statements are intended to be neutral, the selection of topics of a news releases — in this case, decisions against businesses — imply a bias that a quasi-judicial board should assiduously seek to avoid.

Liebman’s current role is appropriately akin to that of an appellate judge, the chief judge of a court that hears appeals. We do not recall appellate judges sending out news releases saying, “The court today found that the defendant was guilty and took tough action to punish him.” Nor do appellate judges issue releases saying, “The President has nominated qualified candidates to the court, and I fully support these nominations.” Judges also avoid lobbying on policy issues, as well.

President Obama’s nomination of SEIU attorney Craig Becker to the NLRB has sparked protest from employer groups because Becker’s writings suggest he views the board as vehicle to enact pro-labor policies. Business fears a board that issues ruling based on politics, not on facts and the law.

While all the attention is directed toward the Becker nomination, we wonder whether that politicizing is already under way.

So argues Katie Packer, executive director of the Workforce Fairness Institute, in an op-ed in today’s Washington Times, “True intentions exposed,” revealing the not-so-secret agenda of Andy Stern of the SEIU and the AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka in pushing the nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. The Senate last week failed to invoke cloture on Becker’s nomination by a bipartisan, 52-33 vote.

Just days ago, Mr. Trumka wrote, “The NLRB’s job is to protect workers’ rights - but for more than two years it has been functioning with only two members instead of the five it should have. Working people need an NLRB that can enforce the National Labor Relations Act - not one hobbled by vacancies. … These next few weeks will be crucial in building support for a fully functional NLRB.”

So, the Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI) took Mr. Trumka at his word and called on the U.S. Senate to move expeditiously on the other outstanding nominations to the NLRB, namely Democrat Mark Pearce and Republican Brian Hayes. This would give the NLRB the quorum it needs to do its job.

In related dissections of Big Labor’s rhetoric,  LaborPains.org reads a recent opinion column in Politico by William Forbath, professor of law and history at the University of Texas and author of Law and the Shaping of the American Labor Movement. What’s Forbath’s real goal in supporting the nomination of Becker to the NLRB?

From Politico:

“The Becker nomination offers President Barack Obama a more important opportunity, what he likes to call a teachable moment. […]

But unions are on the verge of vanishing. If the Democrats won’t even go this far to halt the battering unions have been taking, then Democrats and the nation will be the losers. For soon, we won’t have any institutional player to do the heavy lifting, to provide the serious money the Democrats need to campaign for job creation, health care reform and financial regulation. McCain and company have demonized Becker simply because he’s a union lawyer. Obama should stand up to them.

Save Big Labor and your party allies, Mr. President! Make a recess appointment of Craig Becker!

Thanks to the Center for Union Facts for slogging through Forbath’s column. We lost interest with his tired invocation of “the big lie” and “teachable moments.” Is that what passes for argument at the University of Texas?

Finally, we draw your attention to yesterday’s post here at Shopfloor.org on the political PR campaign by the current chairman, Wilma Liebman, undermining the board’s quasi-judicial responsibilities. As the Truth About EFCA blog headlined its own post, “Even Without Becker, Politicizing The NLRB.”

Washington Post columnist Al Kamen catches up with week-old news today in his “In the Loop” column, “After failed labor board nomination, unions not too happy with Obama.” It’s the usual melange of snark and inaccuracy applied to the Senate’s Feb. 9 cloture vote that blocked the nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.

First, Kamen writes, “[Senate] Democrats weren’t able to muster the 60 votes needed to get a vote on the nomination of labor lawyer Craig Becker to be chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.” Except Becker wasn’t nominated to be chairman. More Kamen:

Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) also opposed the nomination, apparently after having discovered that Becker, associate general counsel to the Service Employees International Union, was actually a pro-union lawyer. Truly shocking. Who knew?

Yeah, yeah. Here’s the actual reason Sen. Lincoln voted against cloture, which failed 52-33. In her own words:

I believe there should be a balance between the rights of employers and employees in the workplace regarding labor laws and regulations that govern collective bargaining. After reviewing Mr. Becker’s record, I became concerned that his approach to these important issues could undermine the existing rules on union elections on matters that in my view should be addressed through the regular legislative process.

Kamen then repeats organized labor’s line:

The labor folks take Obama’s statement to mean that there’ll be no recess appointment this round — meaning nothing at least until the next Senate recess, in late March — and thus the five-member NLRB, unable to function for more than a year with only two members, will continue to be crippled.

It would surely be better to have a five-member NLRB than the current two-member board, but “crippled” belies the reality that the two-member board has made hundreds of decisions. Several appellate courts have upheld the validity of that quorum, while one — the D.C. Circuit — ruled that a two-member board could not make valid rulings. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the issue. (Jackson-Lewis summary)

In any case, Becker’s confirmation is not required to remove any dispute over a functioning quorum at the NLRB. Two nominees remain pending: Buffalo labor lawyer Mark Pearce, a Democrat, and Brian Hayes, a Republican Senate staffer. If the Senate is intent on healing the supposedly crippled NLRB, it need only confirm Pearce and Hayes.

Other posts on Becker nomination.

Even as organized labor was pressuring the Obama Administration to make a recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, White House officials were drafting a statement making it clear President Obama would NOT appoint Becker during the Presidents’ Day recess next week.

Statement by the President on Senate Confirmations, released Thursday evening:

Today, the United States Senate confirmed 27 of my high-level nominees, many of whom had been awaiting a vote for months. 

At the beginning of the week, a staggering 63 nominees had been stalled in the Senate because one or more senators placed a hold on their nomination.  In most cases, these holds have had nothing to do with the nominee’s qualifications or even political views, and these nominees have already received broad, bipartisan support in the committee process.

Instead, many holds were motivated by a desire to leverage projects for a Senator’s state or simply to frustrate progress.  It is precisely these kinds of tactics that enrage the American people. 

And so on Tuesday, I told Senator McConnell that if Republican senators did not release these holds, I would exercise my authority to fill critically-needed positions in the federal government temporarily through the use of recess appointments.  This is a rare but not unprecedented step that many other presidents have taken.  Since that meeting, I am gratified that Republican senators have responded by releasing many of these holds and allowing 29 nominees to receive a vote in the Senate. 

While this is a good first step, there are still dozens of nominees on hold who deserve a similar vote, and I will be looking for action from the Senate when it returns from recess.  If they do not act, I reserve the right to use my recess appointment authority in the future.

The list of nominees confirmed by the Senate Thursday is here.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs was asked about a recess appointment for Becker during the media briefing Thursday but said only the President had not discussed individual appointments in his meeting with Congressional leadership.

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“

In a media availability after meeting with Congressional leadership, President Obama protested the Senate’s lack of action in confirming his nominations, objecting especially to Senatorial holds. In the President’s short prepared statement before the Q&A he said:

If the Senate does not act — and I make this very clear — if the Senate does not act to confirm these nominees I will consider making several recess appointments during the upcoming recess, because we can’t afford to allow politics to stand in the way of well-functioning government.

He did not mention Craig Becker, the SEIU lawyer he nominated to the National Labor Relations Board, but we draw the inference.

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.