Feb 9, 2010: Senate Vote Expected Today on Controversial NLRB Nomination
Senate leaders plan to dig out of the snow today and vote on the nomination of Craig Becker to National Labor Relations Board. However, with newly elected Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) in office, the Democrats no longer hold a 60-vote majority and must move to invoke cloture on the nomination nod.
Last week the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved Becker’s nomination. However, he still needs full support of the Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) scheduled a vote today to “cut off a Republican filibuster” and a vote “on the nomination itself will follow if the filibuster is cut off,” notes the National Retail Federation’s blog.
The Washington Examiner notes: “Most Republicans oppose Becker, a labor lawyer, because of his advocacy of labor unions and past writings that indicate he favors redrafting union-election rules to favor unions.”
Okay, now for the “so what?” to our industry:
* In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, which he penned while a University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) professor, Becker explained that traditional notions of democracy should not apply in union elections. He wrote that employers should be barred from attending NLRB hearings about elections, and from challenging election results even amid evidence of union misconduct. He believes elections should be removed from work sites and held on "neutral grounds," or via mail ballots. Employers should also be barred from "placing observers at the polls to challenge ballots."
* Becker advocated a new "body of campaign rules" that would severely limit the ability of employers to argue against unionization. He argued that any meeting a company holds that involves a "captive audience" ought to be grounds for overturning an election. If a company wants to distribute leaflets that oppose the union, for example he said it must allow union access to its private property to do the same.
* Becker isn't clear about which of these rules can be implemented by NLRB, and which would require an act of Congress, but his mindset is clear enough: He's willing to push NLRB discretion as far as possible to tilt today's labor rules in favor of easier unionization.
* Union leaders argue that they need these rule changes because they are at a disadvantage during elections. But a Bureau of National Affairs report shows unions winning 67 percent of private ballot representation elections conducted by the NLRB in 2008, the highest rate since BNA began analyzing data in 1984. Meanwhile, 95 percent of all elections are conducted within 56 days of a union petition filing, with a median of 38 days. This suggests that the real union problem is that most workers don't want a union election in the first place. Employees are well aware of what has happened to the steel, auto and other heavily unionized industries.
Becker’s beliefs of empowering the NLRB to make drastic changes in labor regulations including the Employee Free Choice Act (“card check” legislation) and the RESPECT Act is concerning to the business community.
In a letter sent to the Senate last week, the National Retail Federation asked that members vote against the procedural vote to cut off the filibuster and against the nomination as well.
“Mr. Becker’s previous writings both as an employee of SEIU and the AFL-CIO and throughout his academic career have demonstrated that his views about fundamental aspects of U.S. labor relations and the role of the NLRB are far outside of the mainstream,” said NRF Senior Vice President for Government Relations Steve Pfister in the letter.
“His past commentary includes endorsing radical concepts which unduly favor the rights of labor unions while dismissing employer prerogatives in union organizing campaigns and in the union election process,” added Pfister. “The NRF is also concerned that Mr. Becker’s nomination to the Board would result in unproven policies that would dramatically restrict the free speech rights of employers in labor/management relations.”