When it comes to whether NLRB nominee Craig Becker can “implement the Employee Free Choice Act by administrative fiat,” AFL-CIO’s Stewart Acuff says “yes”. Senator Harkin justified his pro-Becker vote yesterday by saying “no”.

This comes directly from Senator Tom Harkin’s prepared statement at the HELP Committee Executive Session on Pending Nominations yesterday.  Shout out to LaborUnionReport.com for calling attention to this:

“Critics have also questioned whether Mr. Becker would come to the Board with an agenda, and whether he would try to implement the Employee Free Choice Act by administrative fiat. As you are all aware, I’m a supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act, and I hope to see it passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.  But I don’t have any illusions that those important changes can somehow be accomplished administratively, and neither does Craig Becker.”

““He has clearly and consistently explained, on numerous occasions, that all three major reforms proposed in EFCA—card check, binding arbitration for first contracts, and treble backpay for illegally fired workers—cannot be accomplished without a change in the statute. And as we all know, statutes can only be amended by those of us elected to Congress, not Executive Branch appointees.”

Bottom line: If Craig Becker couldn’t do so much, the unions wouldn’t fight so hard. It’s what Sen. Harkin was referring to when he begged the HELP committee to approve Becker so he could “start his important work“.  Senator Harkin and Stewart Acuff may not be on the same page publicly, but privately, it’s a whole different story.

Image courtesy of gualtiero.

Update: Senator Harkin justifies vote saying NLRB nomineee “cannot” change the rules

As the Director of Organizing at the AFL-CIO, Stewart Acuff draws a smaller crowd than the SEIU’s Andy Stern or his boss at the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka. But that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have something laughable to say.

In his poorly timed Huffington Post piece yesterday, Acuff took that opportunity to sing the praises of the Employee Free Forced Choice Act and bemoan it stalling on the Hill.  Acuff decided it would be a great idea to show big labor’s cards on the day before the Craig Becker vote.  He wrote that if the Senate “no longer” has EFCA’s 60 votes, then labor will be able to simply create new regulation through nominees to the NLRB.

Um, that’s exactly what the opposition to Craig Becker is claiming will occur, and they have Acuff to thank for confirming that publicly. From his own post:

“We are very close to the 60 votes we need. It we aren’t able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we will work with President Obama and Vice President Biden and their appointees to the National Labor Relations Board to change the rules governing forming a union through administrative action to once again allow workers in America access to one of the most basic freedoms in a democracy–the freedom of speech and assembly and association so that workers can build the collective power to challenge the Financial Elite and Get America Back to Work.”

Acuff may have gotten some much needed attention from his post. But if the Senate doesn’t confirm Becker now, Acuff might get some attention and credit for that too.

Image courtesy of coloradostatesman.com.

The labor numbers out last month were unprecedented, even if they were not unexpected.  Union members in the public sector outnumbered unionized private sector workers for the first time in history.  For union leaders, it is justification for their shrewd calculation–a choice to focus on unionizing public sector workers and make private sector jobs newly public sector jobs.

It’s reminiscent of the “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.  Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”

Private companies are like ponds or lakes, whereas the government is a vast sea of wealth. Here’s the union version: Unionize a private sector worker and you’ll get dues for a few years, until you over fish the pond and it dries up. Unionize a public sector worker and you’ll get dues for a lifetime.

From the Wall Street Journal:

In private industries, union workers are subject to the vagaries of the marketplace and economic growth. Thus in 2009 10.1% of private union jobs were eliminated, which was more than twice the 4.4% rate of overall private job losses. On the other hand, government unions offer what is close to lifetime job security and benefits, subject only to gross dereliction of duty. Once a city or state’s workers are organized by a union, the jobs almost never go away.

This means government is the main playing field of modern unionism, which explains why the AFL-CIO and SEIU have become advocates for higher taxes and government expansion in cities, states and Washington. Unions once saw their main task as negotiating a bigger share of an individual firm’s profits. Now the movement’s main goal is securing a larger share of the overall private economy’s wealth, which means pitting government employees against middle-class taxpayers.[...]

As we can see from the desperate economic and fiscal woes of California, New Jersey, New York and other states with dominant public unions, this has become a major problem for the U.S. economy and small-d democratic governance. It may be the single biggest problem.

Image courtesy of cobalt123.

Yesterday’s hearing on NLRB nominee Craig Becker was dramatic, contentious fodder for blogs and commentary. The vote is expected on Thursday. Here’s a round-up of some of the best quotes and information:

From the Examiner: “Senate rushing to do favors for Big Labor before Brown is seated”

“Becker would be the first union-employed lawyer to be confirmed by the Senate to the NLRB and is very cozy with and has received many paychecks from big politically active unions like the SEIU and AFL-CIO.”

“Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) repeated a portion of the pledge members of the NRLB must take forbidding participation for two years in any matter in which a former employer is a party. He asked Becker if he would recuse himself from any cases coming before the Board involving Becker’s most recent employer, SEIU. Becker replied, “I will abide, Senator McCain, with the terms of that pledge scrupulously, and as I indicated, if any other matters come up outside of the scope of that pledge where any party might think that I might not be impartial, I will consider the matter…. and if necessary recuse myself from those cases.” McCain told Becker, “That’s not good enough.”

From Bloomberg: “Union Lawyer Becker Says He Will Be ‘Practical’ on Labor Board”

“If confirmed, my decisions, unlike the views of a scholar, will have practical, concrete and important consequences,” he told members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee. [...] McCain, who blocked Becker’s nomination last year, said in an interview he may do so again this year.”

Andy Stern may have visited the White House 27 times last year and may consider himself to be unusually close with the Administration, but sometimes he brings the wrath of kings down on his head. Last week, Stern  compared certain respectable Senators to “terrorists“– twice. Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs found himself denouncing Stern’s statements during a press briefing.

Sometimes labor leaders just say the darnedest things:

Q    Thank you, Robert.  Two brief questions.  First, the President was widely praised for the tone that he had with the Republicans, of conciliation and conviviality.  On the other hand, one of his –

MR. GIBBS:  Bill, look it up for me.  (Laughter.)

Q    — major supporters, Andy Stern, of the SEIU, has used some very strong language about Republicans, of one who opposed health care reform, at one point liking them to terrorists.  Is that the kind of talk the President associates with or repudiates?

MR. GIBBS:  I have said this many times in this room about different policy debates.  Nobody should be compared to people that — to the people that have sought to do the world harm through terrorism.  Nobody should be compared to Nazis.  I think in the heat of these debates people tend to get overexcited on both sides of the political spectrum, in both parties, and I think that those types of comments on either side make no sense.

That was such an intense and damaging wrist slap. President Obama may want to follow up with a good stern look next time they meet. FYI, Andy Stern wasn’t any more “overexcited” than normal. Statements like this are pretty much par for the course.

Image courtesy of rightpundits.com.

Tomorrow, Craig Becker, erstwhile nominee to the NLRB, will once again come before the Senate HELP Committee.

Senator McCain successfully placed a hold on Craig Becker’s nomination in the fall, sending his name back to the White House.  In early January a frustrated Obama renominated Craig Becker to the NLRB, and a perturbed McCain called for a formal hearing, which begins tomorrow.  Makes you wonder what’s so special about Craig Becker. But we already know why his nomination is so important.

From the blog in September:

“Craig Becker, who has until now served as Associate General Counsel to the AFL-CIO and the SEIU, is nominated to one of the positions. While we are certain this gives Becker an intimate view of modern labor, his long association with paychecks from labor unions, the now infamous piece he wrote for the Minnesota Law Review in 1993 (which has little kind to say about employers), and even his implied connections to Blagojevich have given groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce something to fret about for months.”

His connections to the unions aren’t a secret.  Here’s an short excerpt from his bio from WhiteHouse.gov:

“Craig Becker currently serves as Associate General Counsel to both the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations.”

The White House saw no need to provide a long bio the second time around.  His most recent biographical information and nomination announcement is limited to the following on WhiteHouse.gov:

“Craig Becker, of Illinois, to be a Member of the National Labor Relations Board for the term of five years expiring December 16, 2014, vice Dennis P. Walsh.”

“Of Illinois” is just so …vague. Then again, considering what’s going on with the SEIU and Blago, maybe Illinois is controversial enough for the White House these days.

We saw this dilemma coming. Labor is frustrated with Democrats, but how should they channel their anger?  Stories about a Brave New World? Mass protests? Fist shaking?

Democratic primary challenges (or just threatening primary challenges) are sounding better and better by the day.  They’ve even got a short list.

The National Journal reports:

“It’s not one big happy family for the Democrats when it comes to some of the brothers and sisters in the house of labor. Frustrations are so great that union chiefs on the AFL-CIO’s executive committee have discussed backing primary election challenges to Democratic senators cool to their agenda. [...] The prospect of encouraging Democratic primary challenges will be raised with the Steelworkers’ executive board when it meets next month, he added. Three senators’ names will be brought up specifically, Gerard said: Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

All told, the AFL-CIO, AFSCME, United Steelworkers, CWA, SEIU, and many others are discussing primary election challenges to demonstrate their seriousness (That is, you know, beyond calling Senators terrorists).

Watching Governor Paterson try to fix New York State’s budget deficit is painful. Under extreme financial burdens, Paterson arrived in office with his hands already tied by financial guarantees. As he proposes ways to close the $7.5 billion budget gap, Paterson is becoming increasingly upset with public sector unions. The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle Reports:

“[Paterson] was less understanding toward public employee unions. “Some people act as if they’re not supposed to take any sacrifice at all,” he said.  “There are those who are so self-absorbed … that they thumb their nose at the public’s face.” A representative from one of the state’s largest unions said when Paterson addresses the growing number of temporary employees in the state work force, it will talk about other issues. “The governor loses more and more credibility with us every day,” said Stephen Madarasz, director of communications for CSEA [Local 1000 AFSCME]“

Hopefully Gov. Paterson isn’t doing his job based on his “credibility” with unions.  But the New York Times editorial reports that his relationship with the state’s unions is, unsurprisingly, complicated:

Mr. Paterson — who is eager to be re-elected — apparently made a deal with state workers’ unions that if they would agree to a less-costly pension plan for new employees, he would not let anyone go until next year. The new pension plan was needed, but Mayor Bloomberg is right that it is unfair for city workers to bear the burden now for Governor Paterson’s deal.

New York City is also billions of dollars in the hole–and Mayor Bloomberg is furious to say the least.  Maybe he should take a long, heard look at the public sector unions. They are worth getting upset over.