Research Briefing

Record Of Obama’s Nominee To NLRB Shows He’ll Go To Any Length To Give Unfair Advantage To Labor Unions Over Job Creators

“More Snow Still To Come, But Senate Plans To Go Ahead On Tuesday Votes ... Democratic Leaders Have A 5 P.M. Tuesday Vote Scheduled On The Controversial Nomination Of Craig Becker To The National Labor Relations Board.” (J. Taylor Rushing, “More Snow Still To Come, But Senate Plans To Go Ahead On Tuesday Votes,” The Hill, 2/8/10)

BECKER WANTS TO USE JOB-KILLING CARD CHECK BILL TO DIRECT OBAMA’S BINGE SPENDING TOWARD lABOR UNIONS

Becker Supports “Employee Free Choice Act,” “Envisions” Legislation As A Way “To Increase Government Funding.” “We can envision a meeting of employers and unions in the industry in which they agree that they should act cooperatively to increase government funding and to avoid the waste of scarce resources on bitter election campaigns by permitting employees to decide whether to be represented by a union through a card check, knowing exactly what it will mean if they do, and without employer opposition. We can envision a no-strike guarantee that goes into effect immediately upon the majority choosing to be represented when the terms of the pre-negotiated, but conditional contract becomes effective …” (Jonathan Hiatt & Craig Becker, “At Age 70, Should The Wagner Act Be Retired? A Response To Professor Dannin,” Berkley Journal of Employment & Labor Law, 2005)

And EFCA Could Kill 1.5 Million Jobs Per Year. “[B]ut for every 3 percentage points gained in union membership through card checks and mandatory arbitration, the following year’s unemployment rate is predicted to increase by 1 percentage point and job creation is predicted to fall by around 1.5 million jobs.” (Anne Layne-Farrar, “An Empirical Assessment of the Employee Free Choice Act: The Economic Implications,” SSRN.com, 3/3/09)

BECKER HELPED OBAMA AUTHOR EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT TIE HANDS OF JOB CREATORS, GIVING LABOR BOSSES UNFAIR ADVANTAGE IN THE WORKPLACE

Becker Helped Draft President Obama’s Pro-Labor Executive Orders. “Mr. Becker also won’t give a clear answer about his role in preparing several pro-labor executive orders issued by President Obama shortly after inauguration … When asked by Sen. Hatch if he was ‘involved or responsible in any way’ for these executive orders, Mr. Becker responded: … ‘As a member of the Presidential Transition Team, I was asked to provide advice and information concerning a possible executive order of the sort described. I was involved in researching, analyzing, preliminary drafting, and consulting with other members of the Transition team.’”  (Editorial, “Acorn’s Ally At The NLRB,” The Wall Street Journal, 10/15/09)

Including Executive Order That Requires Employers To Post Information On Joining A Union. “The attainment of industrial peace is most easily achieved and workers’ productivity is enhanced when workers are well informed of their rights under Federal labor laws … Relying on contractors whose employees are informed of such rights under Federal labor laws facilitates the efficient and economical completion of the Federal Government’s contracts ...” (President Barack Obama, Executive Order – Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor Laws, The White House, 01/30/09)

• But Repeals Requirement Of Union To Inform Employees That They Have Right To Work And Don’t Have To Join Union Or Pay Union Dues To Keep Their Jobs. “Revocation of Prior Order and Actions. Executive Order 13201 … is revoked.” (President Barack Obama, Executive Order – Notification of Employee Rights Under Federal Labor Laws, The White House, 01/30/09)

And Executive Order That Forces Federal Contractors To Bargain With Unions Used By Previous Contractors. “It is the policy of the Federal Government that service contracts … shall include a clause that requires the contractor … under a contract that succeeds a contract for performance of the same or similar services at the same location, to offer those employees … employed under the predecessor contract whose employment will be terminated as a result of the award of the successor contract, a right of first refusal of employment under the contract in positions for which they are qualified.” (President Barack Obama, Executive Order – Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts, The White House, 01/30/09)

BECKER WANTS NLRB TO RULE THAT JOB CREATORS HAVE NO SAY IN WELL-BEING OF EMPLOYEES, GIVING LABOR BOSSES A FREE PASS DURING UNION ELECTIONS

Becker Says Job Creators “Should Have No Right To Be Heard” And “No Standing To Assert Their Employees’ Right To Fair Representation.” “On these latter issues employers should have no right to be heard in either a representation case or an unfair labor practices case, even though Board rulings might indirectly affect their duty to bargain … Employers have no standing to assert their employees’ right to fair representation.” (Craig Becker, “Democracy In The Workplace: Union Representation. Elections And Federal Labor Law,” University of Minnesota Law Review, 1993, p.451-53)

• Because Becker Fundamentally Believes That Businesses Have No “Legal Standing.” "Such a reconception entails the corollary that employers should neither have legal standing as parties to the representation proceeding nor have rights tantamount to those of candidates in union elections." (Craig Becker, “Democracy In The Workplace: Union Representation. Elections And Federal Labor Law,” University of Minnesota Law Review, 1993, p.451-53)

Becker Wants NLRB To Ban Job Creators From Ensuring That Union Elections Are Fair. “The law leaves the Board discretion to determine the appropriate parties to hearings in representation cases….If employers are denied party status, it also follows that the Board should revert to its earlier rule, already approved by the Supreme Court, of barring employers from placing observers at the polls to challenge ballots, as such challenges are resolved at post-election hearings.” (Craig Becker, “Democracy In The Workplace: Union Representation. Elections And Federal Labor Law,” University of Minnesota Law Review, 1993, p.451-53)

• Because Becker Wants Businesses To “Be Stripped Of Any Legally Cognizable Interest In Their Employees’ Election Of Representatives.” (Craig Becker, “Democracy In The Workplace: Union Representation. Elections And Federal Labor Law,” University of Minnesota Law Review, 1993, p.451-53)

Becker Argues That Businesses “Have No Right To Raise Questions” Even in Cases Of Unfair Practices By Labor Bosses. “Similarly, employers should have no right to raise questions concerning voter eligibility or campaign conduct. Because employers have no right to vote, they cast no ballots the significance of which can be diluted by the inclusion of ineligible employees … Because employers lack the formal status either of candidates vying to represent employees or of voters, they should not be entitled to charge that unions disobeyed the rules governing voter eligibility or campaign conduct.” (Craig Becker, “Democracy In The Workplace: Union Representation. Elections And Federal Labor Law,” University of Minnesota Law Review, 1993, p.451-53)

AND BECKER WANTS LABOR BOSSES TO FILE MORE JUNK LAWSUITS AGAINST JOB CREATORS, ENCOURAGING THEM TO BE MORE COMBATIVE

Becker Wants Unions To Be Able To Initiate Class Action Lawsuits Without Employee’s Consent. “When the FLSA was amended in 1947 to require individual, written consent in order to benefit from a private enforcement action, Senator Forrest Donnell … proclaimed, ‘Certainly there is no injustice in that, for if a man wants to join in the suit, why should he not give his consent, in writing …’ It is the thesis of this Article, however, that such a requirement, imposed on workers whose employer has failed to respect the nation’s minimum labor standards, is not only unjust, but unwise public policy and, as implemented by the courts, incoherent.” (Craig Becker and Paul Strauss, “Minimum Labor Standards,” The Minnesota Law Review, 05/24/2008, p.1319)

Instead Of Working To Find Common Ground With Job Creators, Becker Believes That Unions Must Always Threaten “Possibility Of Conflict.” “Only by guaranteeing the possibility of conflict can the law create the conditions for true cooperation. The profound, if paradoxical, relationship between conflict and cooperation, strikes and collective bargaining, was central to the vision of industrial relations that animated the passage of the NLRA. By protecting new forms of collective work stoppages, the law can breathe new life into that vision.” (Craig Becker, “Better Than A Strike: Protecting New Forms of Collective Work Stopages Under The National Labor Relations Act,” 61 University of Chicago Law Review 351, 1994 p.421)