Tweet
Today President Obama announced a series of recess appointments, including – count ‘em – two seats on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Both appointees, Craig Becker and Mark Pearce, are Democrats nominees. A third nominee, Brian Hayes, a staffer for Senator Mike Enzi, was left behind to be voted on by the Senate.
The NLRB is the federal agency that oversees the laws relating to union organizing, and for more than two years, the NLRB has had just two of its five members. Those two members – one Democrat, one Republican – have had to set aside hundreds of cases on which they could not agree in anticipation of at least a third member. On the cases the two NLRB members have decided, anti-worker advocates contested the validity of those decisions all the way up to the Supreme Court this week. While discussing the extended NLRB vacancies, Chief Justice Roberts asked, “And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?”
Obama finally wondered the same thing and put Becker and Pearce on the NLRB. I had worried about a recess appointment of just Becker, as the Republicans could have easily held up Pearce for revenge. So it’s good to see Obama take AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka’s advice and appoint both Democratic nominees.
Now, the problem is that the appointments of Becker and Pearce will only last until the end of this Senate session – the end of 2010 – as opposed to the normal four years of an NLRB term. That means in the next session of Congress, with fewer Democratic Senate seats, there’s going to be yet another fight to staff the NLRB. And there’s no expectation Republicans will think about lifting a finger to make sure the NLRB can function. I wrote this right before Becker’s nomination was returned by the Senate:
In a broader context, Becker is the latest front in the right’s fight against any person or policy considered remotely pro-worker. As with DeMint’s victory over possibly pro-worker TSA nominee Erroll Southers, the fight over Becker shows the extent to which the corporations and their Members of Congress bring out the big guns for any possible advancement of the middle class and workers’ rights. By chipping away at the core of the labor movement, the right erodes the very base of the Democratic Party. It’s a direct hit: labor unions mean boots on the ground for candidates, money for ads, and more. And each time the right picks a fight with Becker, Southers, or the Employee Free Choice Act, both corporations and the right directly benefit from one fewer chance for workers to exercise their rights and one fewer chance for the labor movement to represent the interests of the middle class. Craig Becker needs to be confirmed to the NLRB, if only to ease the bleeding of representation for working people in our government.
This is a fight that will never end. But for the time being, the National Labor Relations Board can get to work – with a 3-1 Democratic majority. It will be a better remainder of 2010 for workers.
UPDATE: Thanks for Kirk and others in the comments; I believe that Becker and Pearce will serve to the end of the next session of Congress, ending in December 2011. So a good year and a half or so for workers is ahead.
39 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Work in Progress
Labor got way too little for their fold on Health Insurance reform.
Is that sarcasm?
‘Oha-ha’
;>)
No, I don’t think it is.
“That means in the next session of Congress, with fewer Democratic Senate seats”
And let’s see, health care is dead, right? I’d wait on those assumptions that we’re gonna lose.
We read that Dawn Johnson’s appointment remains flapping in the wind. These two guys get posted right after the “health care” flip by the union bosses. It points to a quid pro quo to me also.
Chicago machine politics.
We read also that hundreds of vacanies exist in the court system.
The Illuminati of which the Bush family is a part has tied Obama’s hands, it seems.
I’d like to make a small correction. They’ll serve to the end of 2011, not 2010.
Article 2 Section 2: “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.” (My emphasis)
I believe the courts have ruled that the interpretation being used by swopa is the correct one.
As an example, think of John Bolton. He was given a recess appointment as UN Ambassador. He served until the end of that specific Congress and was done. He could have been given a second recess appointment but at that point, he would have to have served for zero salary.
Maybe it’s just me but I think 15 appointments on the first day of recess is pretty good. I was wondering if there’d be even one, so imagine my surprise. On Monday they should do some more. And then Tuesday, Wed. etc. We wouldn’t want it to look like a Sun Myung Moon wedding would we?
After his long, bruising and successful (?) campaign for HCR, perhaps the president has gotten that partisanship fever out of his system.
The next congress will start in January 2011, when the result of the 2010 elections are sworn in.
John Bolton resigned.
May I direct your attention to a CRS FAQ on recess appointments?
Not the next congress, the next session of Congress. In my prior message I posted a link to the CRS FAQ on the subject, which I’m using as primary reference.
John Bolton resigned when it became apparent that he was not going to be confirmed in the position and he was not willing to continue as Ambassador without being paid.
No.
These appointments were long overdue. It’s been almost a year since Becker and Pearce were nominated.There was no reason to hold up these appointments in the first place; it should have been done during the first recess.
Wait, what? Not Paid? Where are you getting that?
Are you under the impression that he’d have continued in the position if the appointment had expired — worked for no pay? If so, you’re mistaken. He’d have no longer been paid because he’d have no longer been Ambassador to the UN.
There were several reasons given for why Mr. Bolton resigned. However, he did so before appointment expired.
OK, I just went back and double-checked. A few facts.
I was mistaken, Mr. Bolton did not resign early.
You are mistaken, Mr. Bolton did not serve for only one year.
Mr. Bolton was appointed in 2005. He served till the end of his appointment, which expired in December of 2006.
If President Bush had appointed Bolton a second time, as a recess appointment (which was being considered), Bolton would have been the UN Ambassador.
However, the law does not allow for a person who has received a second recess appointment for the same position to be paid.
Edit: and I never claimed that Bolton served only one year.
Wait a minute – since this is the first recess of this session, gavelled in on January 3rd, then don’t these recess appointments serve until the next session, gavelled in on January 3rd 2011?
To the author – so if it’s not the union position then it is automatically anti-worker?
Btw, I’m always perplexed how union members are referred to as “working” or “workers”. So we should assume that those of us who aren’t in a union aren’t “working” or “workers”. Interesting…
Indeed you did not. You merely offered gentle correction saying you thought swopa was right (which is, if I recall, that it would end in one year) and gave Bolton as an example. I made the inference that you were presenting Bolton as an example of one year or less service, and responded to what I thought I was reading.
Unions were needed prior to labour laws. Now they just serve as a political arm of the Progressive Democratic party. Leading America to become the new Communist state the acronym fits United States of Americas Progressive Union USA-PU!
fUNNY HOW THE LIBERAL DEMS DESPITE HAVING COMPLETE CONTROLL FOR A YEAR ALONG WITH THE GOP FAILED TO FIND BECKER ACCEPTABLE, IN FACT REJECTING HIM.
~~~ModNote: We appreciate your comment, but request no all-caps shouting. Thanks.~~~
empthwheel is upstairs!
The Cass Sunstein Campaign against Open Source Leaks
Can’t the nomination be re-submitted for a full term even when the person is serving in an interim, recess-appointed basis?
The core function of Unions is to negotiate a contract with management on behalf of its members. Its called collective bargaining.
You know this could mean that labor gets the equivalent of the EFCA, right? That would be HUGE. I’d like to see a write-up on that. How specifically can the NLRB change labor law so that it’s practically the equivalent of the EFCA?
yes, i also await dawn johnson…..
START SATIRE
The Democratic party, at least in theory, favors a democratic nation, but Communist nations are republics. As in the well known phrase, This is not a democracy it is a republic. SEE Soviet Socialist Republic & Peoples Republic of China.
Those republics would agree with you that since the state passed wonderful labor laws, the nation was a workers paradise.
END SATIRE
I hope that clears things up for you.
Why that unipartisan S.O.B. What nerve!
Come on Mr. President appoint Dawn Johnson so she can get Cheney and the other WAR CRIMINALS, also while the Repuks are away fill those slots on the Bench.
That’s basically impossible. No way could the NLRB do enough to make EFCA de facto. The NLRB just doesn’t have that kind of power.
Uh, the Senate voted for Becker 52-33. Only antiquated cloture rules stopped Becker, cause a majority supports him.
http://workinprogress.firedoglake.com/2010/02/09/lincoln-nelson-join-filibuster-of-craig-becker/
This is a pro-union blog. Get used to it.
Unions fight for both their members and working people who aren’t union members. You may not want to believe it, but it’s a fact.
Craig Becker might be the quid pro quo.
Still doesn’t mean EFCA will pass.
IMHO, Obama could dig up, stitch up, and prop up Jimmy Hoffa for the NLRB. In the end the legislation will fail. I’m counting on the infamous Neolib mantra; “we don’t have the votes.”
Hell,Obama’s probably busy cutting deals with the Chamber of Commerce and lining up some Dems to cover his right this minute.
IMHO, Craig Becker is a symbolic toss of the proverbial bone of “hope,” without any real intention to fight for EFCA.
He’s just looking to sooth the disgruntled part of his base for a while, before he pull’s the rug out and Democrats start blaming
Blue Dogs and Republicans.
Obama can say whatever he wants.
Judge the man for his record. Everything else is shit.
Michael is absolutely correct on this. The NLRB’s powers are limited by the National Labor Relations Act and its decisions are reviewable by the courts. Although the Board could, and should, be much more pro-worker, the Board cannot by itself alter the nature of labor law.
Yes, Teddy, that is correct.
Indeed, my guess is Pearce will be renominated at some point.
Poor Becker, however, has become a pawn in this game, and the Republicans/Chamber of Commerce are likely to continue their opposition.
Get ready for NLRB Round Two:
I read elsewhere that the NLRB General Counsel spot will come open later this year.
This job apparently also requires Senate confirmation and is a “political” job in the sense that the President appoints an individual who reflects his own party’s views.
Get ready for McConnell to go bat-shit again.
Yes, in August – and I believe Schaumber’s term ends then as well. Like I said, it will never end.