The ChamberPost

Key Vote Letter Opposing the Nomination of Craig Becker to the NLRB

by Blair Latoff

This letter just went to the members of the U.S. Senate:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, urges you to oppose the President’s nomination of Craig Becker to serve as a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The Chamber does not take this step lightly. This is only the third time in more than 30 years that the Chamber has opposed a nominee to the Board, most recently the 1993 nomination of William B. Gould.

Mr. Becker has written prolifically about the National Labor Relations Act, the law he would be charged with interpreting and enforcing should he be confirmed. Many of the positions taken in his writings are well outside the mainstream and would disrupt years of established precedent and the delicate balance in current labor law. These positions have raised significant concerns in the employer community. Among those concerns are the extent to which Mr. Becker would restrictively interpret employers’ free speech rights and the extent to which he would seek to expand the use of intermittent strikes and other forms of work stoppages that disrupt the right of employers to maintain operations during labor disputes.

For these reasons, the Chamber urges you to oppose the nomination of Craig Becker to become a Member of the National Labor Relations Board. The Chamber may consider votes on, or in relation to, this nomination—including cloture—in our annual How They Voted
scorecard.

Send your own message here.

Bipartisanship to Blame for Health Reform’s Failure?

by James Gelfand

Well, they’re at it again. Liberal proponents of health care legislation continue to blame too much bipartisanship in the Senate for the failure to pass health reform so far. Despite having a month between when the Senate and the House passed bills, before their filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate was broken, Democrats failed to come to an agreement between the two chambers of Congress. But instead of blaming their infighting, they are blaming Senator Baucus’ efforts to try to forge bipartisan legislation.
Alexander Bolton (via The Hill) reports:

“I’m most critical of the fact that the Senate [Democratic] leadership and, I assume, the White House tried to get a deal with people like Grassley, which was impossible and wasted a huge amount of time,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, a liberal advocacy group.

This is not a joke – the talking points appear to be again to blame Republicans, who had so little power that they could not even mount a filibuster in the Senate or offer a useful motion to recommit against the 80-seat majority in the House. No blame for the far-left liberals in the House who refused to make a deal with the more moderate (but still dangerous) Senate bill.

But it gets even better – an anonymous Democrat Senator then blames White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, a former Baucus aide, for encouraging Baucus. An anonymous liberal health care advocate explains:

“It’s true that Messina was the person the White House relied on to quarterback the Senate strategy. He agreed with the Baucus strategy of going ahead to make this deal [with Republicans] and it did go on too long,” said the advocate.

There you have it. Trying to compromise was what brought it all down. A lot of small business folks are wondering if, after the Massachusetts election, Capitol Hill has learned its lesson about trying to jam through an unpopular health care measure. The answer is no. Be on the lookout for extreme pressure on House Democrats to pass the Senate-passed bill, which may be the only clear way forward for the legislation.

Obama Nominee vs. Small Business?

by Blair Latoff

Glenn Spencer on Fox News discussing NLRB nominee Craig Becker:

Take action here.

A NLRB Storm for Employers

by Bill Miller

As of Monday night, the Senate was still scheduled to hold a 5 p.m. vote today on a judicial nomination, followed by a cloture vote on the nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). But Senate aides and leaders, too, are watching the storm, and not just the snow. Becker's first nomination was placed on hold due to concerns over his extreme positions, especially anti-employer views. And the second nomination barley passed out of committee thanks to a groundswell of opposition given his extreme record.

We need your help right now to stop this nomination. Click here to email your U.S. Senators.  Tell them that in today's economy, we need a renewed focus on jobs and economic growth -- this nomination is a direct threat to both. As a member of the NLRB, Craig Becker could enact provisions of the Employee Free Choice Act without Congressional approval -- which is why his nomination has become Big Labor's top priority. We need you now to kill this latest special interest pay-off.  Email or call your Senators today.

Health Care Reform - Broadening the Discussion

by John Martin

Starting with The Politico:

"President Barack Obama is planning to host a televised meeting with Republican and Democratic congressional leaders on health care reform."

Then to the Washington Post:

"The invitation to meet together on Feb. 25 -- and to do so live in front of the American public -- represents an effort by Obama to hit the reset button on the top domestic priority of his first year in office. It also reflects a recognition that he must have at least some Republican support if he hopes to see health-care reform pass."

Back to The Politico:

"Legislators from both parties applauded the meeting, while holding to their positions on the health care legislation."

As the New York Times reports:

The meeting would mark the first time in the long health care debate that leaders from both sides would be allowed to air their ideas publicly.

At least that's what the New York Times reported at some point. The final article does not contain that line, and seeks to paint the meeting as a political ploy. Still there is this one:

"I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through systematically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward," Mr. Obama said in the interview from the White House Library.

We need real health reform, so let's start over with the best ideas and do the right thing.

//Updated with Politico links.

Hope and Optimism in Arizona

by Monique Funk

Amid a room filled with over 400 Flagstaff Chamber members, Carol Hallett of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Speaker of the House Kirk Adams, and Arizona Chamber of Commerce President Glen Hamer, delivered a message of hope and optimism to the city’s influential entrepreneurs and business leaders.

With a focus on local empowerment, Hallett reminded attendees that the voice of small business owners like members of the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce have the power to help turn this country around. Inspired by a message of free enterprise and the American dream, Flagstaff’s business leaders were invited to work alongside the U.S. Chamber and all of its members − small and large business across the country − to get involved in the American Free Enterprise. Dream Big. campaign

It was encouraging to see that Hallett’s message of bipartisan cooperation to create 20 million jobs in the next decade is being embraced by Arizona’s leaders, including Speaker Adams, Glen Hammer, and Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce’s President and CEO Julie Pastrick. Their dedication, commitment to free enterprise, and willingness to work together for the common good of our nation’s future inspired me and the other attendees at the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce’s annual meeting.

At the closing of the program, several business owners and community leaders expressed their appreciation for the Chamber’s leadership in working to create a stronger economy on local, state, and national levels. In a time when the economy is down and business owners are becoming discouraged, the message of hope and empowerment communicated at the Flagstaff Chamber’s annual meeting was truly inspiring.

Monique Funk is the Development Director for the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

by Steven Law

On January 5, 2010, the Yes Men and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Chamber's lawsuit, claiming that they have a "right" to steal the Chamber's name and trademarks and use them as they want. On February 5, 2010, the Chamber filed its formal response, providing all the reasons why the court should deny the defendants' motion and allow the Chamber's claim to proceed to the information-exchange phase of the lawsuit.

In short, our opposition brief points out that the Yes Men have publicly admitted that their business is "identity theft", and points out that the defendants stole the Chamber's name, registered trademarks and copyrighted software to masquerade as the Chamber on the Internet and in the media as part of a scheme to promote their commercial movie venture and online merchandise business. The brief proves why the Yes Men's identity theft was not a "parody" and why there is no First Amendment right to engage in such misconduct. The brief also explains why the Chamber's lawsuit satisfies all the requirements for pursuing claims for trademark infringement and other state laws that the defendants violated. After the court considers both sides' positions, we feel strongly that the defendants' motion will be denied and the Chamber will be allowed to prosecute its claims.

Weather for Super Bowl XLIV: Partly Cloudy With A 100% Chance of Counterfeiting

by Mark Esper

The weather in Miami leading up to this weekend’s Super Bowl has been erratic to say the least.  And while I’m no meteorologist, there’s one prediction I can make with confidence: one team will come out on top and thousands of vendors will be hawking counterfeit NFL merchandise to football fans in Miami, across the country, and around the world via the Internet.

As the epitome of American sports culture, the Super Bowl game is expected to attract the attention of over 100 million viewers across the globe. Many viewers will be tuning-in for one of the most anticipated games in recent memory, while others will be waiting for the breaks in the game to see what creative ads are thrown their way.  But let’s not forget that the allure of the Super Bowl game, and the fans that both teams draw, also attracts counterfeiters looking to make a quick buck (or a quick million) off of unsuspecting consumers.

NFL licensed merchandise—such as men’s jerseys—can sell for anywhere from $80 on up.  Thus, a price tag of half that much for a seemingly flawless replication seems like a steal for any fan—which is exactly what it is. Each year, as counterfeit vendors make their way to the playoff games to hawk NFL merchandise, the problem of fakes not only gets worse, it gets more sophisticated. Counterfeit jerseys, caps, and other paraphernalia are often mixed in with the real ones, and even the merchant may not know they're selling a fake. A closer look at some merchandise and the subtle discrepancies should become clear: the color is off, the stitching is sloppy, or sometimes players’ names are misspelled.

Counterfeiting costs U.S. businesses hundreds of millions in lost sales each year.  Indeed, the Customs and Border Protection service last year seized 14,841 shipments of counterfeit goods with a domestic value of $260.7 million---and this is only the stuff they caught!  All of this counterfeiting leads to job losses ranging from the workers who make the products, to those that package, market, distribute, and sell them.  The NFL and its franchises are surely affected as well, especially given the League’s popularity with the American people. 

And in today’s Internet era, sales of counterfeit goods are not just happening on street corners, back alley stores, or outside stadiums, it is occurring in increasingly higher numbers online, and in ways that fool consumers into thinking these goods are the real thing.

In 2009, intellectual property rights (IPR) enforcement operations at Super Bowl XLIII in Tampa, Florida, led to many arrests and seizures of counterfeit merchandise. Federal agents joined the Tampa Police Department, Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office and the NFL to work together in the operation leading up to the big event. According to the U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement this collaborative effort led to the seizure of more than 15,000 pieces of counterfeit merchandise with a retail value of almost $2 million.  Similar efforts this year have already resulted in seizure of 1,600 items—valued at $155,000—of fake Super Bowl-related memorabilia, along with other counterfeit items.

Counterfeiting has a much greater cost than just lost merchandise sales. Intellectual property theft—through counterfeiting—is NOT a victimless crime. Not only do these crimes eat away at our economy with job losses, but those involved in these crimes are often directly linked to organized crime in one way or another.

Although the U.S. government has made tremendous progress over the past couple years to address the worsening crime of counterfeiting, there are number of additional steps the Congress and the Obama Administration can take to substantively improve our IP protections efforts.  Domestically, the newly confirmed Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) will play a critical role in creating and implementing a comprehensive national IP strategy to promote and protect IP. 

Counterfeiting is a serious global problem that costs tens of thousands of American jobs each year, and eats away at our economic growth and vibrancy.  The only way to fight back is through stringent enforcement and consumer awareness.  So as we watch the game on Sunday, there will be a lot of activity going on behind the scenes that you’ll never see on instant replay. The cracking down on counterfeiting is just one step in stopping this illegal activity. Increased vigilance from law enforcement all the way to Congress and the White House is needed if we are to deal a serious blow to this detriment to our economy. And lastly, if you’re at the game this weekend or online in the coming weeks, and the price of that NFL cap or jersey seems too good to be true, it’s probably a fake; please don’t buy it, somebody’s job may depend on it.

Cape Winds of Change

by Brad Peck

The Washington Post opines:

Last month, the Energy Department released a study concluding that wind turbines could power 20 percent of the eastern electric grid by 2024. But if the nearly decade-long fight over a relatively small wind farm off Cape Cod is any indication, a big obstacle will be extreme not-in-my-back-yard-ism. For nine years, the developers behind the Cape Wind project have jumped through regulatory hoops in hopes of erecting 130 turbines in Nantucket Sound, a near-ideal location -- shallow, protected from large waves, close to a large number of electricity consumers and blessed with plentiful wind. At every step, a group of nearby residents -- including environmentalists in the Kennedy family who maintain their complex on the shore of the sound -- have fought to keep the turbines out and their ocean views unobstructed.

...No matter where you build in the eastern United States, you are likely to mar someone's view or disturb land that some group considers valuable. In this case, the plan's potential benefits outweigh the drawbacks. The wind farm's developers aim to provide 75 percent of the electricity for the Cape and nearby islands. And the project would be an early test of wind power's feasibility, taking advantage of the area's rare natural setting to push costs down.

This one is just common sense right?  Philip Howard looks at that theme (sub req):

"[We] can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow," the president claimed. "From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains..."

But America can't build new infrastructure because no one has the authority to say "go." Nearly endless environmental review, followed by years of litigation by anyone who doesn't want the project, will make it impossible to put a shovel in the ground for a new project for years.

Too much law always causes paralysis.  Environmentalists wanted legal power to stop bad projects, and now find themselves unable to build good projects.  Real people must have responsibility to make these decisions -- that's what government is for.  Cut the environmental review process to a year or two at most.

Shorter: Build, Baby, Build.

 

HELP Committee No Help for Employers or Workers

by Brad Peck

As the AP reports, my emphasis:

A Senate panel has narrowly approved the nomination of union lawyer Craig Becker to become a member of the National Labor Relations Board...Republicans claim that Becker would make pro-union changes on the NLRB without congressional approval. The 13-10 party line vote in committee sends Becker's nomination to the Senate floor, where a vote could come as soon as next week.

Any one else making that claim? How about union chief Stewart Acuff? (h/t LaborUnionReport):

It we aren't able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we will work with President Obama and Vice President Biden and their appointees to the National Labor Relations Board to change the rules governing forming a union through administrative action...

Which is why Becker's appointment to the NLRB is "the highest priority for organized labor..." and why the U.S. Chamber urged:

the Committee to oppose reporting to the full Senate the President’s nomination of Craig Becker to serve as a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). While the Chamber applauds you for holding a hearing on Mr. Becker’s controversial nomination, the Chamber opposes his confirmation. The Chamber does not take this step lightly. This is only the third time in more than 30 years that this organization has opposed a nominee to the Board, most recently the 1993 nomination of William B. Gould.

Mr. Becker has written prolifically about the National Labor Relations Act, the law he would be charged with interpreting and enforcing should he be confirmed. Many of the positions taken in his writings are well outside the mainstream and would disrupt years of established precedent and the delicate balance in current labor law. These positions have raised significant concerns in the employer community.

While this week’s hearing began to examine some of these important questions, too many concerns remain for employers to be comfortable with this nomination. Among those concerns are the extent to which Mr. Becker would restrictively interpret employers’ free speech rights and the extent to which he would seek to expand the use of intermittent strikes and other forms of work stoppages that disrupt the right of employers to maintain operations during labor disputes.