Keith Bogardus of the The Hill, who has been tracking this issue for years, ran an article yesterday examining employer concerns. The piece highlighted a letter by the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, of which Associated Builders and Contractors is a member:

“Among other adverse impacts, using electronic means to permit off-site, or remote, voting during union organizing elections will subject employees to a level of intimidation and coercion that does not occur during an on-site, private ballot election that is directly supervised by the NLRB,” the coalition said in the letter. “Electronic voting bears a striking resemblance to the card-check scheme.”

Full letter here.

As we noted earlier today, union officials aren’t done throwing their money around. In many respects, they’re just getting started. So even if card check took a public blow with positive election results in Arkansas, EFCA 1.5 is still a major threat to keep an eye on.

Now Shopfloor’s Carter Wood is adding two very valuable cents, pointing out that Becker’s ethics pledge looked like swiss cheese, opining: “Well, if you’re going to blow through your ethics pledge, might as well be audacious about it. But Becker shouldn’t expect to be confirmed by the Senate via unanimous consent for a full term on the board.”

He did some digging and found out that the NLRB is now essentially doing public relations work for unions, putting out notices of union-won elections (which, of course, greatly undercuts the argument for the sinisterly misnamed Employee Free Choice Act). What Peck found was that the PR work was a significant break from the past, when the Board remained neutral, as one would expect given the wording and spirit of the National Labor Relations Act. This left him to conclude:

Unions and some Board folks have in the past cherry picked a few words out of the 1935 policy declaration in the Wagner Act that it is the policy of the US to “encourage” collective bargaining – as if the 1947 Taft-Hartley amendments were never enacted. This may be the line of thought justifying the new issuance of releases trumpeting employees choosing a union, while not issuing similar releases heralding the rejection of a union — but the NLRB should be proud whenever a fair election is conducted, whatever the results.

With fair elections resulting in employees choosing representation becoming the norm, one wonders whether those who want Craig Becker and the other members in the majority on the board to change the rules for elections understand that these results undermine their position.

We don’t need a skewed NLRB any more than we need card check. Both are bad for employees, employers, and the overall health of our economy.

Photo courtesy of:

We tracked down John Raudabaugh, formerly of the NLRB and now of Nixon Peabody, with a question we’d received about the president’s departure from the standard practice of appointing members from both parties. Here’s what Mr. Raudabaugh offered:

“The NLRB is now 3 to 1. On August 27, it will be 3 to 0. Not since the New Deal and first six years of the NLRB, 1935-1941, has the Board been all Democrats or all from one party. Labor law reform followed in 1947 to balance the scales. Is the past to be prologue”

It’s hard to beat the expertise of someone’s who has sat in that very chair. And so many historical parallels one could get into …

UPDATE: More reaction coming in … The US Chamber adds 50 cases to keep an eye on and warns employers to be on red alert.

UPDATE(d) UPDATE: Thanks to BigGovernment.com readers for joining us! Also se more from Rob Bluey of Heritage, who writes: “The appearance of preferential treatment hasn’t stopped Obama from rewarding his allies at SEIU. Stern was picked in February to serve on Obama’s debt commission. Burger was tapped for Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board in 2009. And now Becker, despite Senate opposition, has secured a coveted appointment to represent the Big Labor’s interests at the NLRB.”

UPDATE to the third power: Keith Smith at Shopfloor.org asks the important question: Now what?

“It is well known that Becker has advocated for the most radical theories of labor law far outside the mainstream – including severely restricting the free speech rights of employers – which is one of the many reasons why his nomination failed in the Senate,” said Elmer. “We object to this move by President Obama to ignore not only Congress, but the will of the people in favor of a political payback to big labor.

“Becker is the first person ever to sit on the National Labor Relations Board that has worked directly for a labor organization. Those with business before the board have a right to face a fair and impartial panel, but it is highly doubtful that Becker will administer our nation’s labor laws in an unbiased manner.

“Radical partisanship has no place in a federal board designed as an independent agency to serve the public interest,” said Elmer. “Allowing Craig Becker a seat on the National Labor Relations Board will disrupt years of established precedent and the delicate balance in current labor law,” Elmer said.

That leads the chatter around the blogosphere.

The Daily Caller reported it as “Obama rewards unions with key labor appointee,” while noting all 41 Republican Senators sent a letter to the president urging him not to move forward with Becker’s recess appointment. The wording left nothing to the imagination, saying Obama gave “organized labor a big payback for its help in pushing his health-care reform across the finish line, unilaterally appointing a controversial pro-union attorney…”

Investors Business Daily reflects on the stakes involved and turns to the words of the AFL-CIO’s own Stewart Acuff, “If 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.”

Elsewhere, Chris Stirewalt of the Washington Examiner writes: “Now that Obamacare is the law of the land, Democrats promise to take on global warming, card check, immigration and a regulatory crackdown on banks.”

As Carter Wood notes, it’s questionable whether Becker would have been approved by the Senate:

Becker was indeed approved by the Senate HELP Committee on a partyline vote, but as noted, he lacked sufficient support in the full Senate to win confirmation. Opposing him were two Democratic Senators, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.

More importantly, Wood writes, the “business community has vigorously opposed the Becker appointment because of his record of radical views on labor that would exclude any employer involvement, including expression of opinion, when unions try to organize a business.”

The tally: Recess appointments for union lawyers and the school of hard knocks for workplace democracy.

Here are some of the details:

Reviewing his academic writings, they argue if Becker were seated on the labor board, he would be able to “institute far-reaching changes in the law that would not merely interpret existing law, but would bypass the role of Congress in setting national labor policy.”

In both the GOP’s and business groups’ letters, they take no issue with Obama’s two other labor board nominees, Mark Pearce and Brian Pearce, who have yet to be confirmed.

When the recess bell tolls, it should not be accompanied with fanfare for an appointee whose views are well outside the mainstream.