Obama Labor Board Nominee, "workers should not be able to choose against having a union"

Townhall.com ^ | February 1, 2010 | Staff

[jazusamo]

Guest post from Americans for Tax Reform

If the Senate’s schedule remains unchanged, a cloture vote on Obama's nominee to the National Labor Relations Board, Craig Becker, is expected Thursday, February 4. Such a move will disenfranchise the Senate’s newest member, Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown. Democratic leadership reaffirmed numerous times that the Senate would not vote on any health care legislation until Senator Brown is seated.

Harry Reid: “We’re not going to rush into anything. We’re going to wait until the new senator arrives to do more on health care.”

Jim Webb: “It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”

The magnitude of health care legislation is unquestionable; Democrats should be applauded for delaying a Senate vote until Mr. Brown is seated. Similarly, Craig Becker’s nomination for the NLRB is of comparable magnitude and should also be postponed until Senator Brown is seated. A vote for Becker is a vote for card check.

Mr. Becker, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Associate General Counsel, has regularly advocated for inappropriate use of the NLRB’s power. In an instant of uncensored honesty, Mr. Becker wrote that employers should be barred from NLRB proceedings:

“On these latter issues employers should have no right to be heard in either a representation case or an unfair labor practice case, even though Board rulings might indirectly affect their duty to bargain.”

To suggest that employers should have no role in the unionization process, as Mr. Becker does, is a point of view that is outside of the mainstream and one that puts him at odds with the current practices of the NLRB.

Just as Mr. Becker views employers as obstacles to increased unionization, he similarly views workers ability to democratically choose union representation as problematic:

“Just as U.S. Citizens cannot opt against having a congressman, workers should not be able to choose against having a union as their monopoly-bargaining agent.”

Mr. Becker feels workers "should not be able to choose against having a union." How do you feel? Call your Senator (Senate switchboard: (202)224-3121) and tell them to oppose Mr. Beckers nomination to the NLRB.

ATR sent this letter to all members of the Senate urging them to oppose Becker.

[jazusamo]

Another lie by Harry Reid if this cloture vote is taken before Sen. Scott Brown is seated.

[TheClintons-STILLAnti-American]

Yet another proponent of “tolerance” and “choice” Democrat style.

[kbennkc]

Have I missed the the protests of the repugnican leadership ?

[counterpunch]

NO UNANIMOUS CONSENT UNTIL SENATOR BROWN IS SEATED!

GOP = Government's Other Party

We will throw out the Republicans, too, if we must!
No more two-party collusion! Defeat the Washington Party!
 

[Pining_4_TX]

I thought the guy who was holding the MA seat was supposed to be out as soon as the election was certified. Why is he still allowed to vote? Should we contact our own senators about this?

[jazusamo]

I guess I’ve missed them too unless the Repub leadership hasn’t made any noise. I believe it’s the latter.

[savedbygrace]

“Just as U.S. Citizens cannot opt against having a congressman, workers should not be able to choose against having a union as their monopoly-bargaining agent.”

You mean other than the fact that congressional representation is constitutionally required and union representation is not?

[Cobra64]

[jazusamo]

Paul Kirk shouldn’t be allowed to vote, IMO. Even if Brown hasn’t been seated officially he’s being paid as a U.S. Senator.

I believe it’s always good to contact Reps and Sens to let them know how we feel on matters.

[jazusamo]

Union mindset to the max, isn’t it?

[wiggen]

Reid is an ass and if possible,Becker is an even bigger one. No choice? I thought libs were pro choice.

[Integrityrocks]

“Just as U.S. Citizens cannot opt against having a congressman, workers should not be able to choose against having a union as their monopoly-bargaining agent.”

First issue spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, second made up in his head. Oh ya.... there’s a balanced argument. NOT.

[loveliberty2]

"Just as U.S. Citizens cannot opt against having a congressman, workers should not be able to choose against having a union as their monopoly-bargaining agent.”

Is this the same line of reasoning which says, "Just as no American should choose to be against being 'Pro-Choice,' women should not be able to choose against having an abortion"?

Must be, with all the objection to Mrs. Tebow's story being told at the Super Bowl.

[jazusamo]

Yep, Rats and lefitists are all for tolerance and diversity until you don’t agree with them.