Worker Advocate Asks Attorney General Holder to Investigate Apparent Violations of Obama Ethics Pledge by Labor Board Member

Craig Becker, Obama’s recess NLRB appointee, has rejected requests to recuse himself from pending cases involving his former employer

Washington, DC (August 9, 2010) – The National Right to Work Foundation, a charitable organization that provides free legal aid to employees, today asked United States Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct an investigation into National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recess appointee Craig Becker’s participation in cases involving his former employer, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Earlier this summer, Right to Work attorneys filed more than a dozen recusal motions against Becker, who served as associate general counsel for the SEIU and AFL-CIO before he was appointed to the NLRB during a Congressional recess. As the SEIU’s in-house lawyer, Becker litigated against Right to Work Foundation clients and developed legal strategies for SEIU local affiliates across the country. His published writings also indicate a strong level of hostility to the Foundation’s employee-oriented legal aid program.

Foundation attorneys asked Becker to step aside from any case involving Foundation-assisted workers, the SEIU, or its subordinate affiliates. Despite these apparent conflicts of interest, Becker has refused to recuse himself in every case but one.

Only the Attorney General or his appropriate designee has the authority under the Executive Order to investigate any violations of the Obama Administration ethics pledge, which Becker signed. The pledge explicitly forbids any appointee from involving themselves with a former employer for no less than two years.

Click here to read the full release.

In 2007, National Right to Work Foundation attorneys persuaded the National Labor Relations Board to establish new rights for workers through the landmark Dana/Metaldyne decision.  The ruling empowered workers to call a vote to kick out an unwanted union during a 45-day window period following a successful "card check" organizing drive.

The ruling was a rebuke of union organizers and their coercive tactics, as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) acknowledged the abuses, and determined that employees needed a way to challenge the imposition of a union workplace monopoly via card check by obtaining a secret ballot decertification election.

Prior to the Obama Administration, the NLRB maintained an online database of all card check recognitions and any subsequent union decertification elections. The NLRB, however, stopped updating this information last spring. Foundation attorneys recently demanded the NLRB to update the database regularly, and NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman responded last week.  Although she blamed the General Counsel's office for the neglect, she stated the agency would post new information monthly going forward.

While this information doesn't prevent coercive card check organizing on the job - an increasingly common union tactic even without passage of the pending EFCA legislation in Congress - it does help the public see how widely used this abusive union organizing actually is... and which companies have blocked their employees' access to secret balloting.

Perhaps even more importantly, this data reveals the nasty little fact that card check signing does not represent employees' true wishes.  For in many cases, the very union bosses who came in through card check were sent packing -- only days later -- after employees obtained a secret ballot vote. 

Here at Freedom@Work, we've spent some time documenting the Obama Administration's efforts to gut basic union transparency guidelines under the guise of saving money. We've also urged concerned readers to get involved to help stop the Department of Labor from rolling back transparency requirements aimed at curbing Big Labor's corrupt practices. Unfortunately, the worst may be yet to come -- the Administration has just announced its potential plans to close the Employment Standards Administration, an office tasked with rooting out union corruption:

The Obama Administration has found a way to cut $100 million from the federal budget and one of the items on the chopping block is an office inside the Department of Labor that conducts oversight of labor unions.

Pursuant to President Obama’s April order that federal agencies come up with away to eliminate $100 million in wasteful spending, White House Budget Chief Peter Orzsag and Cabinet Secretary Christopher Lu issued a 20-page list of items to cut to the president on Monday.

One of the proposed cost-saving measures is the disbanding of the Employment Standards Administration (page 11 in the link), an office in the Department of Labor that has the power to audit and investigate labor unions for corruption and embezzlement.

While transparency is no substitute for rolling back union bosses' many government-granted privileges, the Administration's eagerness to give its Big Labor allies a free pass on financial disclosure shows a callous disregard for the rank-and-file workers whose money union bosses are spending. So long as workers across the country are being forced to pay union dues just to keep their jobs, they should be getting more information about how their seized dues are being spent, not less.

Right to Work Foundation Urges Department of Labor Not to Trash Union Disclosure Rules

Obama Administration seems primed to make it easier for union bosses to hide lucrative perks from rank-and-file workers

Washington, DC (March 9, 2009) – Prompted by a Rahm Emanuel directive on Inauguration Day, the U.S. Department of Labor seems ready to discard new union disclosure rules developed over two years by the previous administration.

In response, the National Right to Work Foundation has submitted comments urging the Department to maintain or strengthen rules aimed at curbing union boss corruption.

In late January, the Department of Labor announced that it was considering changes to recently revised LM-2 disclosure guidelines, which require unions to list the specific compensation – financial or otherwise – of individual union officers and to name all parties involved in any union-related transactions. Unions routinely spend millions of dollars on staff compensation, purchases unrelated to collective bargaining, and lavish perks for top union officials. The disclosure requirements are intended to ensure that dues-paying workers have some idea what they’re paying for . . .

--

Click here to read the entire release. The Foundation submitted comments opposing any rescission of existing disclosure regulations, which are available here (.pdf).