sigh. Obama's Pro-Union Nominations to Labor Relations Board Stalled

[cali]

By Steven Hill & Dmitri Iglitzin

January 20, 2010

A pitched battle is taking place behind closed doors over the Obama administration's appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). It's unfortunate that the conflict has avoided the glare of the public spotlight, because the outcome of this partisan skirmish may be more important than that over the labor movement's number-one legislative priority, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

This fight is clearly ideological, pitting progressives and liberals against conservatives, including conservatives within the Democratic Party. But the conservatives have been more vigilant, mobilizing their opposition, while the White House, lacking sufficient pressure from either labor unions or their progressive allies, or from Congressional Democrats busy fighting over healthcare, has been content to avoid any additional bruising conflict.

In keeping with organized labor's wishes, President Obama has nominated two Democrats and one Republican to join the two sitting members, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, on the five-member NLRB. If these nominations are approved by majority vote in the Senate, the NLRB will be controlled by labor-friendly Democrats for the first time since the Clinton administration.

To understand what is at stake, it's necessary to understand the potential power of the NLRB, a little-known administrative agency with broad authority over labor matters. The president appoints and the Senate confirms members to this body, and an NLRB on which Obama appointees constitute a majority could overturn a number of key decisions issued by the Bush administration-appointed board. Most legal scholars and labor experts believe that the NLRB has the authority to enact procedural changes that could, among other things:

<snip>

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100201/hill_iglitzin

[blondeatlast]

1. Progressives: this is your wake-up call. Sending a strong message

here, when Obama has already served you well, will strengthen your influence.

Call your Congresscritter now, thanks.

[daa]

6. You know, I thought that at first too

but look how quick Trumka and the unions cut their own deal on health care and left us to be taxed while they weren't. They are on their own.

[blondeatlast]

7. Apples are not the same as trucks.

Anti-union is not progressive. Period.

[daa]

9. They looked out for their own, not progressives nt

[blondeatlast]

11. Apples still aren't trucks. nt

[blondeatlast]

2. Sigh x2. Between these noms and Hilda Solis, Obama has proven to be

quite pro-Union, but apparently, the "base" is deaf to it.

I'll keep this kicked. It matters a LOT.

[spanone]

3. the party of nothing gains the upper hand

[blondeatlast]

4. Cali; I think this thread is going to say a LOT about the state of DU

right now.

We have a sterling opportunity here; will anyone notice?

[cali]

5. no, this isn't sexy enough I guess.

I didn't expect a lot of responses.

[annabanana]

8. The unrecs on this thread are abominable . . n/t

[blondeatlast]

10. As I say, this thread says a LOT about the state of DU right now.

And I don't like it a bit.

[cali]

12. I noticed that too.

I think there are people who unrec on personality.

[blondeatlast]

13. Sigh x3. nt

[Metatron]

14. K&R

Thanks for posting this - it's very important.

[ibegurpard]

15. Indeed

kick