Today, the Denver Post questioned President Obama’s recess appointment of radical SEIU union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, noting how Becker’s biases against workers’ rights:

From the Denver Post:

We question Becker’s ability to be an arbiter enforcing fairness in union elections…Becker served as counsel to both the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the AFL-CIO. It was [SEIU] president Andy Stern who visited the Obama White House 38 times (at last count), and his union spent a reported $66 million to help the president win election.

The Post continues:

He not only supports so-called "card check," the Employee Free Choice Act that which would effectively eliminate secret ballots and strip away worker privacy when forming a union, he also advocates for the elimination of the "no union" option from workers’ ballots. And he thinks employers should have no "role in union organizing campaigns and in union representation elections."

How can Americans expect Becker will exhibit impartiality?

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, for instance, already has asked Becker to recuse himself from 12 cases because "his prior writings demonstrate a bias against the group."

Read the whole Denver Post editorial here.

It appears Big Labor will stop at nothing to impose card check forced unionism on American workers and job-providers. Public opposition from energized Right to Work supporters and other concerned Americans to the draconian card check bill — which eliminates the secret ballot in workplace unionization drives, opens up workers to intimidating "home visits," and allows government bureaucrats to impose contracts on workers — has thus far stalled the legislation in the Senate.

On Tuesday, in what may have been a test vote on card check, the Senate rejected an attempt to move President Obama’s nomination of radical union lawyer Craig Becker to a seat on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the quasi-judicial agency that administers federal labor law.  Becker’s writings indicated a willingness to impose the card check forced unionism mechanism through NLRB rules, without even a Congressional vote.

But despite this setback union officials aren’t giving up on card check, and neither are the forced unionism proponents in the Obama Administration.  The Daily Caller reports that White House staffers are considering a new executive order that could effectively require all federal contractors to submit their workers to coercive card check campaigns:

Critics say the proposals would heavily favor unionized companies and significantly increase the cost and amount of time needed to award contracts. Estimates have the potential cost increase at 20 percent, adding about $100 billion a year to the federal budget.

“Making contracting decisions based on political or ideological litmus tests will waste taxpayer dollars and limit economic growth at a time when we can least afford to do so. The administration’s new rules amount to a backdoor attempt at card check. The last thing our small businesses need is to be saddled with new rules that effectively say ‘unionize or die,’” said John Hart, communications director for Senator Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican. Coburn and four other Senate Republicans sent a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag last week asking for a briefing on the proposals; they have yet to receive a response.

…

Now the administration is facing increasing pressure to go around Congress and implement pro-labor policies via executive order. The Service Employees International Union, one of the groups lobbying the White House to adopt the new labor policies, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

No surprises here: SEIU czar Andy Stern was the most frequest visitor to the White House in Obama’s first year.

President Barack Obama’s empty promises of unprecedented transparency have "won" him a federal lawsuit.  His Department of Labor has for many months ignored a series of Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) requests that would let the American people know more about the close connections forged this year between the Department of Labor officials and Big Labor operatives.

Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, discusses in today’s Washington Examiner why the Foundation is pressing the Obama Administration to disclose its entanglements with Big Labor cronies using the Freedom of Information Act:

The foundation’s concerns about possible conflicts of interest start right at the top with Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who held a leadership post at American Rights at Work, a group funded by the AFL-CIO and the powerful Service Employees International Union.

The foundation is also seeking information on the role of former AFL-CIO lawyer Deborah Greenfield, now a high-ranking Department of Labor official. Before the election, Greenfield filed suit on Big Labor’s behalf to stop the implementation of some modest disclosure requirements for union officials. Now she’s in charge of gutting those same reporting guidelines.

In his first full day in office, Obama pledged that his appointees "will not for a period of two years … participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to their former employer." Yet Labor Secretary Solis was given a free pass, even though she helped oversee ARAW’s intense lobbying program while serving as a member of Congress (itself a congressional ethics problem).

Meanwhile, as a lawyer with the AFL-CIO, Greenfield sued the Department of Labor over the very regulations she is now rolling back.

Understandably concerned, the National Right to Work Foundation filed a FOIA request for more information seven months ago, only to be stonewalled by Labor bureaucrats. Other than a few cursory status updates, Obama’s Department of Labor has ignored the statutory requirement to provide disclosure. In short, it may be hiding information about whether Solis and Greenfield are coordinating their activities with union operatives.

…

After months of waiting for a response from the Department of Labor, Right to Work Foundation lawyers filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court to force the Obama administration to fulfill its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act. Hopefully, this complaint will spur the Department of Labor toward greater disclosure.

The public at least deserves to know the extent to which union operatives are rewriting laws and regulations put in place to ensure minimal standards of union transparency and accountability.

To read all of Mark Mix’s op-ed in today’s Washington Examiner, click here.

President Barack Obama’s efforts to transition the Department of Labor into a giant, taxpayer-funded extension of Big Labor’s organizing and political fund-raising machine just hit another milestone. President Barack Obama’s January 30, 2009 executive order, aimed to help union bosses seize more forced dues revenue to fund Big Labor’s political agenda, was just printed in the Federal Register — making it official. 

In a nutshell, the EO tears down posted notices to employees of federal contractors which explain they can actually refrain from paying forced union dues spent for union electioneering and the like.

Obama’s directive intends to ensure millions of workers do not learn of their rights and revokes former-President Bush’s February 2001 executive order which required federal contractors to post notices in the workplace simply informing employees of their right to refrain from formal, full-dues-paying union membership and pay only the documented cost of collective bargaining.

National Right to Work Foundation attorneys won these rights in their precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court victory in Communication Workers v. Beck (1988).  

Regular Freedom@Work readers may remember Obama’s edict was one of the first in a long line of political paybacks to Big Labor for their use of over a billion forced-dues dollars in 2008 to elected him and his pro-compulsory unionism allies in Congress.  View some other Obama paybacks to Big Labor, including his picks on who controls the Department of Labor and the NLRB, rolling back union disclosure guidelines and reducing union boss accountability, and using taxpayer dollars to fund their forced dues operations and bail out union boss pension funds.

True to form, compulsory unionism advocates are exploiting a serious situation to try to force more workers into union monopoly control. In this case, union bosses have long set their sights on forcing America’s airport screeners into union ranks. From the Wall Street Journal:

The notion that unionized airport baggage screeners in Detroit could have prevented Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding a plane in Amsterdam or Lagos doesn’t make much sense. But sure enough, some in Congress are using the thwarted Christmas Day terrorist attack to argue that a new leader for the Transportation Security Administration could have saved the day.

Rahm Emanuel’s famous declaration that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste seems to have become a way of Washington life.

That’s the meaning of the political and media beatdown now being visited on Republican Senator Jim DeMint for the high crime of putting a hold on the nomination of Erroll Southers to head TSA, which runs the 50,000 airport screeners. Mr. DeMint objects because Mr. Southers has refused to say whether he would reverse current policy and back collective bargaining for baggage and passenger screeners, which the Obama Administration and Democrats on Capitol Hill support.

…Mr. DeMint’s objection is rooted in a substantive concern that union practices and work rules will compromise security. TSA uses a performance pay system that tries to reward ability and effort, with the goal of recruiting and retaining the best employees. Unions prefer seniority-based pay that puts a premium on time served rather than performance.

TSA also needs to be able to change its procedures or move personnel to high-risk locations on short notice. Agency managers now have the ability to do that, but under union work rules they might need to get the permission of union leaders, who won’t want to upset the rank-and-file.

In other words, Congressman Thompson has it exactly backwards. If the goal is to have a "nimble, responsive" TSA, a non-union work force makes more sense.

The Journal correctly points out that union boss work rules can hamper TSA’s efforts to keep our skies safe. But also, union bosses often put the expansion of their forced unionism empire before the safety of the public and even the very employees they claim to represent.

But it doesn’t stop at airport screeners, Big Labor is actively pushing to subject America’s first responders to union monopoly control as well. 

Pro-Right to Work Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has a post up on RedState explaining how monopoly bargaining for Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees could interfere with the agency’s ability to effectively respond to threats.

DeMint points out that union monopoly control of border patrol agents, and the wasteful and inefficient rules preferred by the union bosses, has made it difficult for the government to discipline, reassign, or terminate employees.

To best protect our national security, the government must have the resources to remove egregious offenders from the positions and allocate resources as efficiently as possible.  DeMint outlines how monopoly bargaining for TSA agents could weaken our national security:

• Requiring TSA to get union bosses’ permission before implementing security and workforce changes. If the unions decided the changes were too burdensome on their employees, weeks or months of negotiations could ensue, causing unacceptable delays in implementing new safety protocols.
• Requiring TSA managers to promote based on seniority, not merit, and making it more difficult to discipline failing employees.
• Requiring TSA to share sensitive intelligence information to third parties during negotiations with union bosses, making future leaks of classified material more likely.

"Lets keep our focus at TSA on security, not politics," DeMint concludes.

Read the full post here. And don’t forget, along with the important policy concerns raised by the Senator, union monopoly bargaining powers represent a fundamental violation of the rights (pdf) of all individual employees, TSA agent, or anyone else.

Although surprisingly NOT registered as a lobbyist, SEIU Top Boss Andy Stern is The White House’s most frequent visitor. Union bosses get top billing at high-profile administration events. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis’s last job was at Big Labor-front group American Rights at Work. To commemorate the union bosses’ newfound friendliness with top White House politicos, we decided to put together a short video on the Obama Administration relationship with Big Labor:

The Right to Work Foundation continues to work tirelessly to promote greater transparency at the Department of Labor. Unfortunately, the root of the too-close-for-comfort relationship between union bosses and the White House can be traced back to Big Labor’s many government-granted powers. Until we’re able to roll back these union boss privileges, the White House will remain a favored destination for Big Labor bosses. 

Yesterday in Roll Call, Bret Jacobson noted the importance of today’s Senate hearings on President Obama’s nomination of Service Employee International Union General Counsel, Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.

Thus, we have today’s hearing for Becker, a longtime strategist and lawyer for organized labor. If they can’t get “card check” through a broad, participatory legislative process, they’ll push to grab a similar victory through the federal board’s ability to regulate without approval of the people’s Representatives.

As such, this hearing — demanded by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is troubled by Becker’s blatantly anti-employer views — signals that we have officially hit plan B on the administration’s strategy for pandering to the organized labor lobby. This new course will focus on the quiet job-killer of regulation and card check by fiat.

But the real problem isn’t that Becker is anti-employer — it’s that his career as a diehard union boss apologist reveals an extreme hostility to the very employees the union bosses claim to represent.  Last October, National Right Work president Mark Mix took to the pages of the Washington Times to make this very point:

In fact, as a former AFL-CIO and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) lawyer, Mr. Becker is solely responsible for forcing tens of thousands of workers under union boss control.

In one case, reports from a Los Angeles SEIU local union revealed that almost 63,000 people rejected membership in the union in 2007, but thanks to Mr. Becker, were still forced to pay dues.

And Mr. Becker’s own words explain why. He was even so bold as to say unions were "formed to escape the evils of individualism and individual competition … their actions necessarily involve coercion."

With that kind of anything-goes attitude, it’s no surprise Mr. Becker supports "home visits," in which union militants repeatedly harass workers at home until they sign union-authorization cards, and even advocates letting Mr. Obama’s handpicked arbiters impose contracts on workers, without even allowing the workers to vote on their own contract.

Contrast Craig Becker’s radical, pro-coercion views with the words of Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor: "No lasting gain has ever come from compulsion."

For more on Becker, see this post from the National Right to Work Committee’s blog and visit their action center here.