Obama gives recess appointment to radical labor lawyer Senate rejected

[doctordog]

This really isn’t a big surprise, as Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis hinted it was coming. But President Obama has given Craig Becker, a former top attorney for the SEIU and AFL-CIO, a recess appointment to the National Labor Relations Board.

Becker’s nomination was held-up on a bipartisan vote by the Senate last month, with two Democrats crossing the aisle to oppose his nomination. Essentially, the argument against Becker is that he’s far too radical.

Back when he was a law professor, Becker wrote paper for the Minnesota Law Review where he outlined a specific plan for dramatically remaking regulatory landscape on labor issues via the National Labor Relations Board.

And as a lawyer, Becker once argued that “employers should have no right to be heard in either a representation case or an unfair labor practice case” that comes before the NLRB. Lately, Becker has been a staunch advocate of card check legislation which would eliminate secret ballots in union elections.

There’s no compelling reason for such a radical advocate to be given such an important post. Aside from the problem of the fox guarding the hen house, it just reeks of political payback. Unions spent $400 million getting Democrats elected in 2008 and now Obama’s going to stack the deck in their favor, killing jobs and sticking it to the taxpayer in the process.

For more on what Becker’s recess appointment means, see this op-ed by Katie Packer of the Workforce Fairness Institute.





Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-gives-radical-labor-lawyer-rejected-by-senate-recess-appointment-89330677.html#ixzz0jW7oZu2z

[Hawkeye2j]

What makes him radical? Bush opened the door to this with his United Nations recess appointment.

[doctordog]

What makes him radical? Bush opened the door to this with his United Nations recess appointment.

Start a thread about Bush if you wish, as you can see this is about Obama. Since you only post links you probably missed the verbiage completely.

[Hawkeye2j]

Start a thread about Bush if you wish, as you can see this is about Obama. Since you only post links you probably missed the verbiage completely.
So you can't respond. That doesn't surprise me. The Right is full of accusations but very weak on answers.

[Smurf-Herder]

What makes him radical?

The NRLB is supposed to be impartial in Union/Labor disputes.

If President Obama Cared About Jobs, He Would Have Tabled Becker's Nomination

As Congress begins its Easter break, President Obama is expected to recess appoint labor radical Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) even though Becker failed to receive bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate. At a time when Republicans and Democrats rarely agree on the issues confronting the nation, members of both parties were concerned enough with Becker’s extreme record to say “no” to his nomination.

But unfortunately, that does not seem to trouble a White House who is desperately working to “pay back” Big Labor who invested half a billion dollars to get them elected.

Senator Tom Harkin flatly stated that, “[i]t’s going to happen” when speaking with regard Becker’s nomination. His comments followed those of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis who told the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) they would receive “positive news” and would be “very pleased” with how the Becker nomination was resolved.

All of this conveniently ignores the fact that job creation is supposedly the top agenda item of this administration and Becker’s nomination to the NLRB is in conflict with that objective. Employers today are struggling to remain in business and instead of creating an environment that is conducive to job creation and investment, the administration has chosen to stand with union bosses and promote their job-killing policies, namely the Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act (EFCA).

Craig Becker’s nomination is a threat to the economy because he believes small businesses “should have no right to be heard in either a representation case or an unfair labor practices case” meaning “employers have no standing to assert their employees’ right to fair representation.” These are Becker’s own words, which were published in the University of Minnesota Law Review in 1993.

This extreme nominee believes employers should have no “legal standing” in the unionization process of their own workplace. Really? So the AFL-CIO’s Rich Trumka and the SEIU’s Andy Stern should have a voice in the unionization process and the guy who started the business should not? It would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.

Becker also represents a threat to small business owners as he would almost certainly attempt to impose anti-job creation policies through the NLRB, which could not be achieved through Congressional action.

In fact, Stewart Acuff, a special assistant to the president of the AFL-CIO wrote recently when speaking of EFCA, “[w]e are very close to the 60 votes we need. It [sic] 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...”

What the union bosses are unable to achieve in Congress – where representatives are directly responsible to the people – they expect a nominee to carry out through an agency in the executive branch most Americans are unfamiliar with.

For this very reason, just this week, Senators Orrin Hatch and John McCain drafted an open letter to President Obama in protest to the potential recess nomination saying, “[t]aking this action would install a rejected nominee for an appointed term to the NLRB, setting an unfortunate precedent for all future nominations and future administrations.” All 41 Republican Senators signed the letter, citing the bipartisan opposition Becker faced in the Senate.

These Senators know that Becker’s appointment would be a catalyst for Big Labor to push its self-proclaimed, top-agenda item – the Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act.

EFCA has seen no movement in Congress and frustrated labor bosses will now use Becker as their attempt at getting pieces of the job-killing legislation made reality through “administrative action.”

A change to union formation and negotiation rules, EFCA would remove workers’ right to a private ballot in union elections and would allow a government arbitrator to write binding contracts that directly impact employers and employees. These contracts would affect every aspect of the business and neither the owner nor the workers would have any say regarding its contents.

This attempt to use Becker to enact regulation that would impose EFCA’s forced unionization scheme would be detrimental to businesses and workers around the country and simply stated, would cost us jobs.

A recent study found that over half a million jobs would be lost in one year alone if EFCA was enacted. And to make matters worse, the debts small businesses would have to assume when forced into bankrupt union pension plans would make them financially insolvent.

With so much vocal and public opposition to the Becker nomination, it is deeply disturbing that the Obama Administration would go forward with it and bypass the Congress all to reward union bosses at our expense.

At the end of the day, Americans understand that the economy is in an extremely fragile state and will hold politicians accountable for making decisions that hurt our nation’s top job creators – small businesses – and result in more job loss. If the Obama Administration is truly concerned with economic growth, they will follow the bipartisan will of Congress and table Craig Becker’s nomination.

http://townhall.com/columnists/KatiePacker/2010/03/27/if_president_obama_cared_about_jobs,_he_would_have _tabled_beckers_nomination

[doctordog]

So you can't respond. That doesn't surprise me. The Right is full of accusations but very weak on answers.

The article was self explanatory, if you can't read that is on you. Stay on topic or stay the fuck out asswipe.

[Hawkeye2j]

The NRLB is supposed to be impartial in Union/Labor disputes.

Really? Did you check out Bush's nominees?

[mrmeangenes]

" The NRLB is supposed to be impartial in Union/Labor disputes "....but usually ain't ! Sometimes it's pro-union; other times pro-management.

When it is pro-union,the corporate shills ( and their attendant Geek Chorus) sing their song of woe : declaring the world is about to end.

When it is pro-management, the unions grit their teeth and ask: "What's new?"

[Hawkeye2j]

Ronald E. Meisburg, appointed by Bush to serve as the NLRB’s general counsel during a congressional recess on January 12, 2004? A tidbit from his bio:

Mr. Meisburg was president of the Energy and Mineral Law Foundation (1994 – 1995); a member of the Employment Lawyers Advisory Council of the National Association of Manufacturers (1996 – 1998) [emphasis mine]; and a member of the Industrial Relations Committee of the U.S. Council for International Business (1993 – 1998).

FYI, the National Association of Manufacturers is about as anti-union an operation as you’re likely to find anywhere.

In January of 2002, Bush appointed Michael J. Bartlett to the NLRB on the last day of a congressional recess. From the Web site HR.BLR.com:

Bartlett is director of Labor Law Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce [emphasis mine], a position he has held since 1998. From 1987 to 1995, he was a partner and special counsel with Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson & Hand in Washington, D.C., following two years as vice president for employee relations and labor counsel for Eastern Airlines.

Ronald E. Meisburg, appointed by Bush to serve as the NLRB’s general counsel during a congressional recess on January 12, 2004? A tidbit from his bio:

Mr. Meisburg was president of the Energy and Mineral Law Foundation (1994 – 1995); a member of the Employment Lawyers Advisory Council of the National Association of Manufacturers (1996 – 1998) [emphasis mine]; and a member of the Industrial Relations Committee of the U.S. Council for International Business (1993 – 1998).

FYI, the National Association of Manufacturers is about as anti-union an operation as you’re likely to find anywhere.

In January of 2002, Bush appointed Michael J. Bartlett to the NLRB on the last day of a congressional recess. From the Web site HR.BLR.com:

Bartlett is director of Labor Law Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce [emphasis mine], a position he has held since 1998. From 1987 to 1995, he was a partner and special counsel with Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson & Hand in Washington, D.C., following two years as vice president for employee relations and labor counsel for Eastern Airlines.

Ronald E. Meisburg, appointed by Bush to serve as the NLRB’s general counsel during a congressional recess on January 12, 2004? A tidbit from his bio:

Mr. Meisburg was president of the Energy and Mineral Law Foundation (1994 – 1995); a member of the Employment Lawyers Advisory Council of the National Association of Manufacturers (1996 – 1998) [emphasis mine]; and a member of the Industrial Relations Committee of the U.S. Council for International Business (1993 – 1998).

FYI, the National Association of Manufacturers is about as anti-union an operation as you’re likely to find anywhere.

In January of 2002, Bush appointed Michael J. Bartlett to the NLRB on the last day of a congressional recess. From the Web site HR.BLR.com:

Bartlett is director of Labor Law Policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce [emphasis mine], a position he has held since 1998. From 1987 to 1995, he was a partner and special counsel with Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson & Hand in Washington, D.C., following two years as vice president for employee relations and labor counsel for Eastern Airlines.

[Hawkeye2j]

Here is the link
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/02/12/labor-not-thrilled-by-obama-win-on-appointments/

[Smurf-Herder]

The NRLB is supposed to be impartial in Union/Labor disputes.

Really? Did you check out Bush's nominees?

The point is, if you checked out the story, you'd understand how radical Becker is.

[doctordog]

Here is the link
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/02/12/labor-not-thrilled-by-obama-win-on-appointments/

Fuck you and your links, the topic is Obama and his appointments, if you want to spam, start a thread about Bush and help yourself, otherwise shut the fuck up.

Hey Smurf, any chance this surfrider?

[Hawkeye2j]

Fuck you and your links, the topic is Obama and his appointments, if you want to spam, start a thread about Bush and help yourself, otherwise shut the fuck up.

Hey Smurf, any chance this surfrider?
Fuck you asshole. I did what you morons asked. I posted the story then the link. I was pointing out you can't have it both ways. Obama's appointment is no more radical than Bush's. Bush appointed anti-Union people. You can't cry foul then when Obama appoints pro-Union people. Elections have consequences. Bush used the recess appointment to get his in. It is no more evil when Obama does the same thing.
And Fuck you too. That's how you debate. You can kiss my ass.

[Smurf-Herder]

Fuck you and your links, the topic is Obama and his appointments, if you want to spam, start a thread about Bush and help yourself, otherwise shut the fuck up.

Hey Smurf, any chance this surfrider?

No, I checked it out.

Two different people.

[Hawkeye2j]

Fuck you and your links, the topic is Obama and his appointments, if you want to spam, start a thread about Bush and help yourself, otherwise shut the fuck up.

Hey Smurf, any chance this surfrider?
Anybody else you want to accuse me of being? It is getting tiresome.

[doctordog]

Anybody else you want to accuse me of being? It is getting tiresome.

Too fucking bad Doc, get used to it. As long as you deflect get used to it asshat.

[doctordog]

Fuck you asshole. You can kiss my ass.

Since I don't care for man juice, I'll pass, but thanks for letting me know you are a switch hitter.:thumbsup:

[mwillman]

HaHa

Poor wayers,
You got faced.
When you want to talk about something you think President Obama did wrong you should really check to make sure all the asshats you voted for haven't done the same thing.

[doctordog]

HaHa

Poor wayers,
You got faced.
When you want to talk about something you think President Obama did wrong you should really check to make sure all the asshats you voted for haven't done the same thing.

You fuck ups should just learn to read the title and then post things that are relevant. If you want to talk about the past start a fucking thread or are all you fuck ups too lazy to do that?

[Hawkeye2j]

You fuck ups should just learn to read the title and then post things that are relevant. If you want to talk about the past start a fucking thread or are all you fuck ups too lazy to do that?
You don't think what I posted was relevant? Then you are not very bright. That's what happens when you get bested in an argument you cry and stomp your feet and attack the poster. The left are no longer whipping boys. We will give the crap right back to you.

[doctordog]

You don't think what I posted was relevant? Then you are not very bright. That's what happens when you get bested in an argument you cry and stomp your feet and attack the poster. The left are no longer whipping boys. We will give the crap right back to you.

Crap is all you have posted since joining, so tell us something we don't know.

Bush has nothing to do with Obama, it is just pure defelection from the free loading party because they can't defend the man that is lying to them almost everyday now.

[Hawkeye2j]

Crap is all you have posted since joining, so tell us something we don't know.

Bush has nothing to do with Obama, it is just pure defelection from the free loading party because they can't defend the man that is lying to them almost everyday now.
The past is very relevant to the present. It means precedents are set. And it is the height of hypocrisy for the Right to cheer Bush when he makes those recess appointments and then turn around and condemn Obama for it. When Bush made his appointments many on the left were warning him, the Right won't hold power forever and you may not get the toothpaste back in the tube again.
They were saying that what you do now could be used against you later. Now the chickens have come home to roost.

[Hawkeye2j]

Crap is all you have posted since joining, so tell us something we don't know.

Bush has nothing to do with Obama, it is just pure defelection from the free loading party because they can't defend the man that is lying to them almost everyday now.

Because you do not agree with what I post you call it crap. Since you can't debate the articles I post or opinions I post you resort to attacking the way I post. I don't play that game. Grow up and debate and stop acting like a spoiled child.

[doctordog]

Because you do not agree with what I post you call it crap. Since you can't debate the articles I post or opinions I post you resort to attacking the way I post. I don't play that game. Grow up and debate and stop acting like a spoiled child.

Grow up and discuss the topic and stop the fucking deflection, dumbass.

[mrmeangenes]

Wayers, your avatar describes you more and more every day !

[bairdi]

Wayers, your avatar describes you more and more every day !
You noticed that too?

[doctordog]

Wayers, your avatar describes you more and more every day !

At least I'm honest about unlike you and a few others.