UPDATE: OBAMA DOES END RUN-Senate had voted down Becker in February- Here is the vote tally:http://bunkerville.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/senate-voted-no-to-craig-becker-now-obama-dones-end-run/ Now Obama does Appointment, The People be damned.
The hearing for Craig Becker is today. We can only hope that Scott Brown gets seated in time. Obama marches on, packing the deck with his marxist friends. Where are the Republicans?? Missing in action once again.
According to the WSJ: Big Labor might not even need card check if Craig Becker has his way. “He is Andy Stern’s go to guy,”According to the WSJ. He is currently the associate Counsel for Andy Stern.
Craig Becker is President Obama’s nominee to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and you should be afraid…very, very afraid.
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.”
The NLRB has two primary functions: one, to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices, whether committed by labor organizations or employers, and; two, to establish whether or not certain groups of employees desire labor organization representation for collective-bargaining purposes, and if so, which union.
Becker will be the third person on the five person Board and the second Democrat thus giving them majority on the Board. To say that Becker’s views are “extreme” would be an insult. His views of employer-employee relations invites thoughts of hammers and sickles.
Mr. Becker wholeheartedly believes that employers and workers preferences are second to union goals, namely increased membership. The NLRB is entrusted with interpreting and enforcing the NLRA, laws which apply to nearly every American business. As a member of the NLRB, Mr. Becker would be able to implement his radical ideas and shape labor laws for the indefinite future.
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.”