Skip to comments.Obama uses recess to seat nominees
Posted on 03/27/2010 12:43:11 PM PDT by Outside da Box
President Barack Obama has elected to bypass the Senate and unilaterally install 15 nominees, including the controversial Craig Becker to serve on the National Labor Relations Board, a move sure to infuriate Republicans.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Didn’t the Republicans just agree to nominate some of his people a while ago so he wouldn’t do this? I think so, although this is getting pretty hard to keep up with.
It just goes to show you: Never trust a lying Kenyan Communist Muslim.
Where is the outcry from the MSM
Perfectly legal and ethical for him to do. Elections have consequences.
Elections sure do have consequences. We sure do know that.
Next one we will try to see that democrats larn that.
every election has consequences...lowly city council to state houses to the Senate and House...LISTENING MINNESOTA?
I imagine our GOP Senators do not want to be bothered by such trivial pursuits.
I’m sure somehow this is George Bush’s fault
I hadn't heard they opened one in DC...
treasonous not to use the rule of law
Craig Becker is a former UCLA professor, a former attorney for the AFL-CIO, and a longtime lawyer for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which donated $27.8 million to Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. In October 2009, Obama tapped Becker to fill one of three empty seats on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which Congressional Democrats had blocked President George W. Bush from filling during the last two years of his presidency. The federal overseer of all labor disputes, the Board sets rules for the formation of unions. Becker would radically restructure those rules to favor organized labor, which is not only one of President Obama's chief sources of political donations, but is also an invaluable constituency of the Democratic Party.
Becker's views are simple: no American employed anywhere should have the right to resist being part of a labor union. While acknowledging that "[a]t first blush it might seem fair to give workers the choice to remain unrepresented," he explains: "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." He approvingly quotes Senator Robert F. Wagner's belief that "industrial democracy" is "essential to the preservation of the republican form of government"; by that reasoning, a non-unionized employee is no different than a "non-voting member of a society."
To end workers' self-imposed disenfranchisement, Becker has considered doing away with union elections altogether, or instituting a "reform" to "mandate employee representation" under a system where the only "question posed on the ballot would simply be which representative" would be named as union leader. In a 1993 Minnesota Law Review article, Becker rejected both possibilities on the grounds that "each would require fundamental statutory revision unlikely in the foreseeable future." More recently, he proposed to skew all elections toward the unions, taking a blasé attitude toward election fraud; at the time, the law allowed for unions to be formed after a secret-ballot election held at the workplace, where both management and labor could appoint observers to guard against electoral abuses.
Becker has sought to change this, from top to bottom. He believes the NLRB should strip companies of the right to speak out against unionization at work; bar them from preventing -- or even protesting -- voting fraud; and deny them nearly all right to petition the NLRB. He contends that management should not be allowed to talk about the dangers of unionization on company grounds, as the law has allowed since the 1930s, because in his view employees constitute a "captive audience." Yet he raises no objection to aggressive union organizers stalking workers from the parking lot to their homes. Becker is straightforward in his view that "employers should be stripped of any legally cognizable interest in their employees' election of representatives," and that "employers should have no right to raise questions concerning voter eligibility or campaign conduct."
Under Becker's proposed rules, ineligible voters -- possibly full-time union employees who do not work for the company -- could show up on election day, cast their ballots for SEIU, and if the firm ever found out, it would have no means of recourse. Becker argues that entrepreneurs lack "the formal status either of candidates vying to represent employees or of voters"; he believes they simply exist to pay the wages that unions demand. Should they object, Becker advocates curtailing businesses' right to contest NLRB rulings in federal circuit court.
Although Becker has called for heavy-handed "reforms" that would force many anti-union workers to pay union dues, he has argued that these provisions could be accomplished "with almost no alteration of the statutory framework," as his proposals simply "give effect to existing guarantees." When Republican Senator Orrin Hatch asked, in writing, whether Becker still held to these beliefs, Becker replied that he would "maintain an open mind" about whether they "should be implemented in any manner."
Becker would allow unions to call intermittent strikes, which some call "grievance strikes" -- sudden, brief, and rolling work stoppages that momentarily paralyze a company. Federal law currently does not protect such strikes, but Becker would. Critics similarly charge, with the advent of debate about the merits and demerits of the Employee Free Choice Act ("card-check"), that Becker has become more radicalized. Former NLRB chair William Gould has expressed concern that Becker will implement card-check provisions even if the Act never becomes law.
Wade Rathke -- founder of ACORN, co-founder and chair of the Tides Center, and international board member of SEIU -- wrote that he had "crossed paths" with Becker "for more than 20 years" and had found him to be "a secret weapon for workers." In Rathke's estimation, Becker's appointment by President Obama was "a big win no matter how you bake it."
Becker worked with Chicago SEIU local 880 on the issue of organizing home health-care workers in Illinois; six days after the union had donated $200,000 to then-Governor Rod Blagojevich, the latter signed a law that nearly doubled the local's membership and, according to one source, tripled its income (from $7 million to $21 million). At the same time, SEIU local 880 funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in union dues to ACORN front groups.
On October 21, 2009, Senator John McCain announced that he would place a hold on Obama's appointment of Becker to the NLRB. McCain described Becker as "probably the most controversial nominee that I have seen in a long time." Were it not for McCain's action, Becker would surely have coasted to Senate confirmation. The day McCain placed the hold, the Senate HELP committee voted 15-8 to approve him.
This profile is adapted from the article, "Hold On,Big Labor," written by Ben Johsnon and published by FrontPageMag.com on October 23, 2009.
And ...... these are the same democrats who yelled and screamed because Bush did a recess nomination of John Bolton - one of the most informed person ever to sit as Ambassador in the UN.
I would trust what John says about national security over this admin any day of the week - and twice on Sundays.
no outcry, after all these are socialist dogs and the msm is sniffing up their rears and likeing it.
Between his czars and recess appointees the president has built himself a bona fide shadow government, answerable only to him.
Didn’t this happen after the democrats took control?
It’s a completely different situation when you don’t have control.
Why wouldn’t the Kenyan continue this crap? After all ~50% of the nation seems to still love him.
New material for Glenn Beck!
But..but they told us that Obama would unite the country, and govern from the center. Thank you, Obama voters.
Bush did it many, many times. It is legal.The only way to stop it is to keep the Senate in session. Since the Dems control the Senate that is not gonna happen
Oh, sure, it’s legal. But I think the Republicans dropped their hold on a number of appointments after they thought they had a deal with Obama that he would settle for those, and not make interim appointments.
In other words, it’s legal, but he broke his word.
It is not a matter of the Senate Republicans not wanting to be bothered. When the Democrats kept the Senate in session, they had a majority and could legitimately take that action.
Yeah, the Dems did not pull that trick until after the GOP gave the Senate to them on a silver platter in 2006.
Obama was elected President, not King. He has no respect for the House or Senate. They are mere tools in his effort to turn the US into an autocracy and has demonstrated he will ignore their decisions with impunity.
Sorry, recess appointments are a power granted to the President in the Constitution.
"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."
You know all of those people who stuck out their lower lip and said “I'm staying home, John McCain isn't conservative enough for me”?
They are now experiencing the straightforward concept that
ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES!