THE HILL
 

Business, labor bring fight to NLRB

By Kevin Bogardus - 10/20/09 07:18 PM ET

The nomination of a labor attorney to a federal board has become another front in the fight over legislation that would make it easier for workers to form unions. 

The business community, which has spent millions of dollars to lobby against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), is now turning its attention to the nomination of Craig Becker, an associate general counsel to both the Service Employees International Union and AFL-CIO, to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The Employee Free Choice Act, also known as “card-check,” has stalled in the Senate. But business groups worry that Becker would try to institute parts of EFCA through board rulings.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), National Federation of Independent Business and other business groups sent a letter Tuesday to members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee expressing their opposition to Becker.

On Wednesday, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, is expected to hold a vote to clear Becker’s nomination and move it to the Senate floor.

Business groups originally were calling for a public hearing on Becker before a committee vote. They now oppose the nomination outright.

Much of the lobbying against Becker has focused on his writings in law journals regarding union elections.

“Since the NLRB is charged with administering our nation’s labor laws, the confirmation of Mr. Becker raises the possibility of the EFCA legislation or an equally onerous alternative being imposed through Board action,” wrote Jay Timmons, executive vice president for the NAM, in a separate letter sent to Harkin on Tuesday.

Steven Law, general counsel and chief legal officer for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said his group had a similar concern. The bill and the make-up of the labor board were “related issues,” Law said.

“There are some aspects of the Employee Free Choice Act that can only be achieved legislatively,” Law said. “The concern is the NLRB sets the rules of the game for organizing.”

If passed, EFCA would reform union organizing. The bill would remove the right of management to request a secret-ballot election if workers sign petition cards stating their intention to organize into unions. The bill would also increase penalties for labor law violations and speed up union contract negotiations.

The NLRB, created in 1935 by the National Labor Relations Act, oversees union elections and adjudicates charges of unfair labor practices.

As card-check has stalled in Congress, business groups’ attention has increasingly turned to the administration, which has taken more action on labor’s priorities, according to Richard Hankins, the head of McKenna Long & Aldridge’s labor and employment practice.

“The shift in labor policy toward labor’s agenda is in these other areas right now,” said Hankins, who has represented employers before the NLRB.

Trade associations have come out against suggested revisions for union voting procedures by the National Mediation Board, for example. Also, they have complained about an executive order signed by President Barack Obama that seemingly favors unionized companies in federal contracts.

Like business groups, Senate Republicans on the HELP Committee have criticized Becker, much more than the Democrats’ other NLRB nominee, Mark Pearce, a Buffalo, N.Y., lawyer who practices labor law. Since their nomination by Obama in April, Becker has received close to 300 questions from GOP panel members, much more than the roughly 30 sent to Pearce, according to committee aides.

It is highly unusual for an NLRB nominee to receive a public hearing. The last such hearing was in 1993, according to one committee aide.
Hankins said board nominees are typically packaged together for Senate approval and win confirmation after closed-door negotiations between lawmakers.

“It is rare to have public hearings because of those dynamics and the opportunity to make a political deal,” Hankins said.

Despite the scrutiny by industry, Becker is likely to pass the committee and move on for a Senate floor vote. The union lawyer has the backing of Harkin.

“Craig Becker is one of the pre-eminent labor law thinkers in the United States,” said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for Harkin. “Chairman Harkin believes that with this extensive experience, Craig Becker would be an asset to the National Labor Relations Board.”

Nonetheless, business groups will continue their opposition to Becker once his confirmation vote comes to the Senate floor.
Law, of the Chamber, said the nominee’s labor history and views on union organizing “deserve not to be swept under the rug.”

“If the committee does decide to act on the nomination without a full public hearing, we will do everything to make sure his views are known,” Law said.

Source:
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/64021-business-labor-bring-fight-to-nlrb-

Comments (10)

I already see our local NLRB siding with local unions by not taking the Secreat ballot as the true feelings by employees. A local union lost the election and the NLRB sided with the union. Only the word of the union persuaded the NLRB to not side with the employees. No one asked the employees how we felt. So where is the justice.BY Felix Alvarado on 10/20/2009 at 22:56
Our nation's labor laws are broken. Employers who are aggressive enough can blatantly fire or intimidate union organizers (they even use 1930's style blacklisting!) because the penalty for doing so is very lax. Even when the NLRB finds that the employer has clearly violated the law, the case has to go up to the circuit courts of appeal before the employer is forced to reinstate or pay "back pay". The back pay is only what those fired lost in wages, minus what they earned at another job in the meantime. This is little more than a slap on the wrist to the rogue employer and from a cost-benefit perspective it works for them. EFCA would impose real penalties (triple back pay plus up to $20k) to stop these blatant violations, help limit the interference that employers engage in when workers want to certify a union, and move towards contracts much quicker. This just makes sense, it is not a "giveaway to the big bad union bosses".BY James on 10/21/2009 at 12:48
When the majority of workers want a union, they get a union under current law. There is no problem under current law, and there is nothing to see here. Most non-organized workers don't want a union, which I'm sure drives Dems crazy but its the truth. The card check bill is just another attempt by the leftist crazy Obama gang to subvert democracy for political gain (other examples? fairness doctrine, net neutrality, Kennedy's Senate replacement, Al Franken's election). When will the arrogance stop? Becker is about the craziest in a long line of leftist crazies brought to us by the Obama gang.BY Rodrigo on 10/21/2009 at 13:42
Rodrigo does not inhabit the same reality that I and many others do. (Ask the Wal-Mart workers who have tried to organize and have been prevented from doing so by clearly illegal—under current law—managemen t tactics.) Of course it was just FINE that the Bush II administration packed the NLRB and everything else with opponents of workers' rights (one could say right-wing crazies). So, for years, no matter what majority of workers really wanted a union, management would bring in a bunch of high-priced lawyers, the matter would go to the NLRB and … workers screwed again. But sometimes what goes around comes around.BY Gervasia on 10/21/2009 at 18:06
It's not, and shouldn't be, about Democrat's -vs- Republican's… it's supposed to be about workers wanting a FAIR shot at better working conditions and a livable wage for the (almost extinct) middle-class.If Washington doesn't do something, to finally give the working men/women of this country the ability to organize freely and stop the methodical destruction of the Labor Movement- without the game playing, threats and the high priced legal wrangling that big corporations utilize to keep Union's out… there will be no middle-class.The politics of this country has lost (given away) most of the manufacturing jobs that made the middle-class, that gave us the "American Dream" and made it attainable for most of us. If the Labor Movement isn't turned around and saved NOW, what is going to be left for our children… a one year job working as an associate at Wal-Mart - NO THANKS, I want more for my kids.BY Mark Carotenuto on 10/21/2009 at 21:57
Go back and look at the Wagner Act. While it did limit worker and union activity the Wagner Act as originally written was much more pro-worker than the way it is currently enforced. (see Taking Back the Workers Law by Ellen Dannin)65 years of pro-employer interpretation by the Labor Board and the Federal Courts have been used by appointees to damage workers and union rights. Becker's views are pretty mainstream for people who actually work on this stuff.BY EJ VanDyke on 10/22/2009 at 10:04
There are so many labor laws in existance, it's amazing any companies can continue to do business (and create jobs for all of us). Just imagine starting a business with a great idea or product, and working extremely hard to make it grow. Then, when you're doing everything you can to take care of your employees by giving them fair wages and working conditions and treating them with respect, you hear people like Gervasia slamming employers of all kinds. When did employers become the "big bad company"? They provide us with an income, we provide them with labor. Not a complex relationship. If you don't want to work for Wal-Mart because you don't believe in their employment practices, work somewhere else. In a free economy, we as consumers choose who to do business with. If I don't like Wal-Mart, I don't shop there. If I don't want to work for Wal-Mart, I don't apply there or I go and get another job if I was working there and saw something I didn't like and they wouldn't fix it. Why does it all have to be handled in politics. No-ones forcing us to work one place or another. No one puts a leg-lock on us and forces us into slave labor.BY Vanessa A on 10/22/2009 at 16:51
Not easy dealing with the Senators and Congressional members to try to get a fair shake for the working men and woman when you see how much money big business pours into the pockets of the reps, not to mention how much big business spends on lobbyists. NOTE:I no longer refer to the Senate and Congress as my reps because they don't represent the "little guy" in American they only sent 'em to war to get them killed!BY Dave Ex on 10/23/2009 at 10:58
Having worked in an Unemployment office for many years, I've seen the people who lose their job for some ridiciulous reasons - talking to a work friend about your wages (you're fired if you tell anyone what you make), even mentioning the word "union", etc. WalMart was always known for bringing employees into a room and telling them straight out (more like warning them) that unions are bad and letting them know that if they breathe the word union they'll lose their job. The employee free choice act would prevent employers from trying to pressure employees to vote against a union for fear of losing their jobs. WalMart closed the meat depts in their stores when the members voted for a union - another tactic to let others know they'd better not vote for one. The unions where the ones that brought you the 40 hour work week and that fought against child labor. They are also the ones that brought you the laws that protect workers from being exploited by the boss and fought to get you paid overtime after 40 hours. While there are now departments at the Department of Labor that investigate when employees are not paid properly (or at all), how do you think those things came about? Through labor union backing!! If all employers treated their workers fairly at all times then we would not have a need for unions but the truth is that many employers take advantage of workers because they can intimidate them. That is why we need labor unions in this country. Without them there never would have been paid vacations, paid sick days, workers' compensation if you are injured on the job, or any laws that protect a worker. If you already have all of that then you should thank a union. If you do not, then you should one. We need to make sure that any employee who wants to join a union can make that choice without being pressured by the employer. If they decide to fill out a card saying they want a union and a majority do, that should be the end of it. The only reason the "boss" wants to have a secret ballot is so that they can have plenty of time to pressure employees to vote against the union or lose their job.BY Carol  on 10/24/2009 at 10:13
Vanessa, Wake up already. So many labor laws protecting the worker? Who's enforcing these so called labor laws that you speak of? All those people in the GOA that Reagan fired. Let's see now. If I don't like the choices of employment within —let's say a hours drive from my house. I can do what? Sell my house and move my family? Start my own business? This country behind the forces of the Chamber of Commerce is so pro business and employer friendly it's sickening. The only thing free about this economy is homelessness. The Labor movement is in dire need of someone in power to show some compassion towards the worker.BY jon on 11/14/2009 at 21:22

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.