The Becker appointment: Rammin' 'Bam!
"Ramming speed, Mr. Sulu!"
Consider the classic line from the 1960s TV series "Star Trek" to be the new mantra of the Obama administration.
Emboldened by its success at ramming through nationalized health care, Obama & Co., once Congress left town for its Easter break, installed organized labor extremist Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.
The administration couldn't get Mr. Becker confirmed the normal way; a bipartisan group of senators blocked his nomination last month. So, President Obama installed Becker through a "recess appointment," giving him a seat on the NLRB through 2011.
(By the way, The New York Times called this action a "display of authority." Had it been a Republican doing the same thing, The Times would have called it an "abuse of power.")
How extreme is Craig Becker• Employers should have no legal interest in their employees' election of union representatives, he believes. Becker even has written that employers have no right to raise questions about illegal union organizing conduct or even to be heard in unfair labor practice cases.
This kind of guilty-as-charged mentality has no place on the National Labor Relations Board. As such, the president truly has abused his recess appointment power.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.