What The NLRB Recess Appointments Mean…

Peter Kirsanow, a former member of the National Labor Relations Board, offered this assessment of what we could see from the NLRB with the recess appointments of Craig Becker and Mark Pearce; both union lawyers:

The concern is that the Board, by issuing decisions and rules, could elevate union certification rates near levels anticipated under card check. The concern isn't overblown. Even without the passage of EFCA, the Board could significantly change the organizational landscape. For example, the Board could adopt rules recognizing minority unions, implement ‘quickie’ elections, grant unions greater access to employees for organizational purposes, restrict employer options during union campaigns and elections, recast supervisors' roles during election campaigns, leverage neutrality/card-check agreements by overturning certain Bush Board decisions, and increase the use of mail-ballot elections.

As you may be aware, there are currently three openings on the board. President Obama had put forth three nominees, two Democrats and a Republican. However, Obama chose to appoint just the two Democratic nominees over the weekend, meaning the Republican needs to be confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate. In a different blog post, Kirsanow stated that he believed Brian Hayes, the Republican nominee, is being used as leverage in the Senate to confirm all three as part of a package deal.

Under a recess appointment, Becker and Pearce can only serve through the end of 2011. The seats will be vacant once again at that point if they are not confirmed. If they are confirmed, however, they can serve around another three years.

Unions Making Political Waves Early

We had previously talked about the financial investment unions are ready to make in the 2010 elections, and now they are working to make their voice heard.

While this story may have unfolded in a Staten Island, New York congressional district, it could resonate throughout the country with moderate Democrats. The SEIU, last week, met with Rep. Mike McMahon (D-NY) and bluntly told him they will field a primary challenger against him should he vote against the healthcare bill.

The official who made the statement was Mike Fishman, president of SEIU 32bj, the largest property workers union in the country with 120,000 members in eight states. McMahon comes from a conservative district and opposed the bill last year, but Democrats and unions are looking for him to change his vote this time around.

Fishman said, “We put an enormous amount of effort into electing Democrats…If you can’t support this, we can’t support you.” That message is pretty clear. McMahon, for the record, is a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, but clearly that is not enough.

Speaking of EFCA, one Senator who has held every position possible on the bill is Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter. Specter, who is in a primary fight with Rep. Joe Sestak, received good news yesterday in the form of an endorsement from the SEIU.

Specter, as a Republican, announced his opposition to EFCA about a year ago sending a dagger in the hearts of labor unions. However, Specter soon bolted to the Democratic Party and modified his position to say he supports a compromise bill that he has been working on. Sestak has been challenging Specter from the left, but Specter’s new position seems to be good enough for the union. Specter also has the backing of the UAW and the Transportation Union (as well as several locals). Sestak has the backing of the UFCW.

Recent polls give Specter a big lead in the primary.

We will also be following the Arkansas Senate race where labor has put all their eggs in the basket of Lt. Gov. Bill Halter who is hoping to defeat Sen. Blanche Lincoln in the Democratic primary. Four unions- SEIU, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, and CWA- have pledged $1 million a piece to this primary. (This is an interesting way to spend their money considering polls show both Lincoln and Halter getting clobbered in the general election).

Lincoln- to her credit (or maybe not)- has ignored calls to move to the left in the race, continues to call herself an “independent voice,” and bashed Halter for using union money to pay off his debt from a previous campaign.

Stay tuned, we’ll only have more stories as we get closer to November.

AFL-CIO Will Be Heavily Involved In Midterms

A lot of the talk involving the November elections is that rank-and-file union members are not exactly excited about helping out Democrats (as they were in 2008). Just how much ground work they provide remains to be seen, but the unions do not appear to be holding back financially.

The AFL-CIO is planning on spending more than they ever have this time around; likely surpassing the $53 million they spent in 2008. And the union will be focusing there money and efforts on six key states: California, Illinois, Nevada, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

These states all have relatively high numbers of union workers and families, and play home to several important elections.

Of the six Senate elections in the states the AFL-CIO is focusing on, five seats are held by Democrats and one (Ohio) is held by Republicans. As it stands today, California (Boxer) and New York (Gillibrand) are relatively safe bets to hold for Democrats. Illinois (open), Ohio (open) and Pennsylvania (Specter) are all regarded as toss-ups, while Nevada (Reid) looks likely to flip to Republicans.

The states also have many competitive House elections that the AFL-CIO will be involved in.

On a side note, the AFL-CIO has endorsed Arkansas Lt. Gov Bill Halter in the Democratic primary against incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln. The union has committed $3 million toward Halter. Both Halter and Lincoln are trailing badly to the likely Republican opponent, and the odds are good this will flip sides in November.

But as we have said, look to see if the union members themselves are excited about the election- not just the bosses.

Will Labor Take Their Frustration Out on Democrats?

The Associated Press had a write-up over the weekend where they examined just what was going on with organized labor as we are well into year two of the Obama administration- and just eight months away from mid-term elections.

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that labor is not happy- although in the past they have seemingly withheld that frustration publicly. When Obama chose healthcare reform as his top legislative fight, unions went along under the premise of “healthcare now, EFCA next.” And with a labor friendly president, a huge majority in the House, and a filibuster proof 60 seats in the Senate (at least until Scott Brown’s election in January), you had to like labor’s chances at getting their way.

Well, healthcare reform is stalled and EFCA has essentially been declared dead for now. When you consider that labor spent $400 million on Obama and Congressional Democrats, it doesn’t look like they have had a good return on investment quite yet.

Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO president, has started to criticize the work of Senate Democrats. He likened the $15 billion jobs bill to putting a “Band-Aid on an amputated limb.” But Trumka is far more likely to be casting blame on Senate Republicans. Earlier he urged a recess appointment for Craig Becker, the union lawyer whose NLRB nomination was blocked in the Senate, calling on supporters to “demand that President Obama fight Republican obstructionism.” I imagine Trumka and other labor leaders will stick to putting pressure on the White House privately.

If unions had trouble getting their agenda through this relatively friendly Congress, the 2010 mid-term election pose a definite challenge to them. United Steelworkers president Leo Gerard said “we’re going to have a hard time motivating our folks” to get involved in the election battles if Senators and Representatives do not push their agenda forward- which many Democrats have not been doing in their opinion.

Labor typically serves as the base of the support for Democrats performing tasks such as manning phone-banks and going door-to-door. The Democrats will need every bit of their enthusiasm as political analysts see four Democratic held seats in the Senate that Republicans look likely to win in the fall, with four more seats that could go either way. A net loss of four to seven seats is expected meaning the Democrats majority would be in the range of 52-55, which is a world away from the 60 Democrats once held.