Huffington Post

When the Senate filibustered the nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board on Tuesday, it wasn't just a setback for President Obama or for what the Wall Street Journal editorial page likes to call "Big Labor." It was a slap in the face to the American middle class.

True, most Americans have no idea what the National Labor Relations Board is or what it does. But if we don't know we've been slapped,we feel the sting nonetheless.

We feel the sting when we realize that typical working families gained very little benefit from the boom years of the 2000s, even though corporate profits and incomes at the top soared. We feel it when we realize that the real wage for the typical American man was barely higher in 2007 than it was in 1973, despite big gains in workplace productivity that mean these workers were creating more value. We feel it when, as economists at the Economic Policy Institute observe "The American workforce is working harder, smarter, and more efficiently, yet failing to share fairly in the benefits of the growth they themselves are creating."

What does the National Labor Relations Board have to do with all this? Not everything: factors like increased international trade, technological change, and the shift to a service economy certainly played a role in the stagnating fortunes of working Americans. But by hindering employees' ability to organize unions -- the very activity it was established to promote -- and by failing to adapt workplace regulations to deal with a changing economy, the NLRB undermined the ability of working Americans to negotiate for their fair share of economic gains. In doing so, it undermined the nation's middle class. Craig Becker's nomination to the Board was supposed to be a step toward reversing the decline.

A little background: the NLRB was established in 1935 as part of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board was empowered to "make, amend, and rescind... rules and regulations" necessary to carry out the Act and its aim of protecting the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively.

It worked reasonably well for awhile. In the 1950s, more than a third of American workers held a union card. By negotiating for higher wages and better working conditions, unions transformed "bad" jobs on manufacturing assembly lines into today's "good" jobs, providing the economic mobility that enabled many working people to enjoy a middle-class standard of living. (There's no question that this broad prosperity continued to marginalize important segments of the workforce, and that any revitalization of the labor movement must be far more inclusive.)

But over the decades, and especially during the Bush years, the NLRB strayed from its mission of protecting workers' rights. The Board increasingly sided with employers, turning a blind eye to employers' anti-union threats and coercion, allowing employers to enact workplace policies that inhibit employees' established rights to freedom of association, and restricting the rights to nurses, temp workers, college instructors, and other broad groups of employees to even make a choice about union representation.

Illegal anti-union tactics by employers grew more pervasive as a result. Research by Cornell University professor Kate Bronfenbrenner reveals that today more than half of employers faced with a union organizing drive illegally threaten to close down their facility if the union wins, while one in three companies illegally fire workers for union activity. Employers regularly engage in surveillance, intimidation and harassment of employees trying to unionize. The NLRB's dereliction of duty means that supporting a union at work now poses workers with a significant risk of getting fired.

Today, unions still manage to bargain for the kind of wages and benefits that once characterized the American middle class, but the decades of anti-union policy by employers abetted by the NLRB mean they represent a shrinking proportion of the American workforce, now disproportionately in the public sector. That isn't enough to sustain the middle class, and as Harold Meyerson pointed out in the Washington Post, it soon won't be enough to fight for the broad public good on issues like universal health care and financial regulation.

Revitalizing the NLRB, and returning it to its original mission is a key step toward rebuilding the American middle class. Just because the Senate has slapped us across the face doesn't mean President Obama needs to follow suit. A recess appointment for Craig Becker would begin to heal the wound.

****************************************************************************************

By MELANIE TROTTMAN And KRIS MAHER

Leaders of some big unions are pushing the White House to appoint former union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board despite the failure of his nomination in the Senate, as they try to salvage what they can of their legislative and regulatory agenda ahead of the 2010 elections.

"I think he should be appointed. I think a majority should rule here, and I hope the president takes it under strong consideration," said Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern in an interview Wednesday.

United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard also wanted a so-called recess appointment—which bypasses the requirement for Senate confirmation—for Mr. Becker, and warned Democrats Thursday that failure to move on labor priorities could cost them in the 2010 elections. "If we don't get meaningful progress, it will be hard to get people out for the election," Mr. Gerard said. "Lots of people who worked real hard in '08 don't have a job right now."

Mr. Becker, who worked for the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, won 52 votes in a Senate vote Tuesday, but that was short of the 60 needed to overcome a Republican-led filibuster. Two Democrats, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, voted no. The vote further dimmed the chances that the Senate would move on a top labor priority, the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for unions to organize workers.

The White House hasn't said whether it would try to seat Mr. Becker by appointing him while Congress was in recess. But the administration is trying to reassure labor allies. "We will work with our allies and with Congress to help restore balance to the federal government on behalf of working people," the White House said Wednesday.

In the aftermath of the defeat, union officials said they would press harder on the Labor Department and the NLRB to enforce existing rules protecting workers' rights.

"We will be pushing for stepped-up enforcement at the labor board and the labor department, such as cracking down on wage and hour abuses, health and safety violations, and efforts to thwart union organizing," said Bill Samuel, legislative director for labor federation AFL-CIO, which represents 57 unions. "We hope the president will use the bully pulpit to criticize employers that are violating the basic rights of workers."

Union leaders said they would look for other ways to get some of the results they had hoped for from the Employee Free Choice Act. "We need to find ways in our country for American workers to get a raise," said the SEIU's Mr. Stern. "If the Employee Free Choice Act as it is written is not going to be the vehicle to do that, we are not going to stop looking for ways to make sure people get raises and have choices," he said.

Among the proposals unions have on their agenda: a jobs bill and legislation that would require employers to give workers time off to deal with their own or others' health needs.

Some business groups are concerned about the prospect of more aggressive enforcement actions by the Labor Department. They point to the recent confirmation of Patricia Smith as the department's solicitor, the agency' No. 3 post. Strongly supported by unions, she gained a reputation as a tough labor commissioner of New York state known for vigorous enforcement of rules for minimum wage and overtime pay. In her first year on the job, she collected 37% more in wage underpayments and 20% more in fines than in the prior year.

"The danger there is that the enforcement gets targeted on companies that are being targeted by unions for organizing," said Dan Yager, chief policy officer of the HR Policy Association, a Washington business group.

Unions will also look for more federal spending on infrastructure projects that can benefit the building trades unions, labor experts said.