Isakson Concerned Becker Will Use Position to Favor Labor Unions

Reiterates Opposition to Card Check Legislation

Feb 03, 2010

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator and Senate candidate Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., today reiterated his concerns that nominee Craig Becker will use his position on the National Labor Relations Board to manipulate the federal regulatory process to favor labor unions if he is confirmed.

“I remain concerned that Craig Becker will compromise fairness in order to grant favors to the special interest groups that currently employ him,” Isakson said. “The NLRB has a history of trying to maintain a delicate balance of current law on union organizing that provides advantages and restrictions for both sides. It is imperative that this balance continues, regardless of which party controls the White House.”

Becker is currently associate general counsel to both the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union. The five-member NLRB to which he has been nominated supervises union elections, investigates labor practices and issues rulings that interpret the National Labor Relations Act.

During Becker’s nomination hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee today, Isakson questioned Becker about his past writings that have indicated a belief that the NLRB has the authority to make dramatic changes to the National Labor Relations Act without congressional action, including changes denying workers a secret ballot.

Isakson is strongly opposed to the so-called Employee Free Choice Act, also known as card check, which would eliminate the rights of workers to participate in a secret-ballot election in order to certify the creation of a union. Instead, the legislation would force employees to make a public declaration of their preference by allowing union organizers to bypass elections if a majority of employees sign cards authorizing a union.

Additionally, Becker has advocated a new “body of campaign rules” that would severely limit the ability of employers to argue against unionization. He has argued that any meeting a company holds that involves a “captive audience” ought to be grounds for overturning an election. If a company wants to distribute leaflets that oppose the union, for example, Becker has said it must allow union access to its private property to do the same. Isakson believes such views are incompatible with a free market that allows small businesses to thrive.