Believe it or not, the five member National Labor Relations Board -- the entity responsible for protecting a worker's right to collective bargaining -- has three vacant seats, and the implications for workers are mounting.
With only two position filled, the board only takes action when both members, one Democrat and one Republican, can agree. Even those decisions are currently being challenged in court, and justly so.
When it comes to the NLRB, anarchy has replaced democracy. Across the country, many workers regularly experience intimidation, firing and retribution in response to legitimate union organization activities. The NLRB is the appropriate channel for checking the outsized power of employers over those in their employ. When that channel is effectively cut off, as it has been for nearly twenty two months now, the bargaining rights that are the cornerstone of the American middle class begin to lose their meaning and relevance. After all, it's not what's written in the law books that matters, it's the facts on the ground.
Clearly, President Obama's NLRB appointees are being used as political pawns. In reality, the stalled confirmation hearings are about two things, both unrelated to the actual qualifications of the nominees. First, the constant delays constitute retribution for similar delays that Democrats put in place for President Bush's NLRB appointments. And second, the delays are an opportunity for Republicans, from their minority position, to throw a wrench into whatever plans Democrats and President Obama have for governing under their clear mandate from the 2008 election.
Most reasonable people would agree that neither of these are sufficient reasons to prevent the Senate from voting on the President's duly appointed nominees for such crucial positions. So where does that leave us? How do we prevent an entire generation of employers from feeling entitled to harass workers for asserting their right to bargain for decent wages, benefits and working conditions?
Unfortunately, I'm not sure there is a way forward, other than to wait for Republicans to exhaust every avenue of delay at their disposal. Maybe these delay tactics -- on this issue and many others -- will work exactly as intended. Maybe the American people will blame the resulting gridlock on the majority party, rather than on the party responsible. Maybe that will lead to yet another pendulum swing, another GOP revolution. All of that is possible, perhaps even probable because of the ingrained cynicism so many have developed toward whoever is "in power."
Progress so often comes at a snail's pace. While I think there is plenty of potential for change during the next seven years of Obama's administration, to impact the rate of change, so we don't always have to settle for tiny victories, progressives may actually have to wait until we're in the minority again. At that point, we can choose to set a new precedent by not using every conceivable tool to foil the plans of the majority. As Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez and Mohandas Gandhi all showed, sometimes you can't move forward until you lay down your arms.