[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 65 (Monday, May 5, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5740-S5741]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECESS APPOINTMENT OF PETER EIDE
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I rise to share my concerns about
the recess appointment of Peter Eide to fill the post of general
counsel at the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Recently, President Bush announced several recess appointments of
pending nominees to fill posts in his administration. One of those
appointments was granted to Peter Eide. Mr. Eide's nomination has been
under active consideration by the Governmental Affairs Committee since
its referral, and a public hearing to consider his appointment was held
on April 10. I am disappointed that the President chose to exercise his
discretion to make this recess appointment rather than allowing the
advice and consent process to continue on course.
Mr. Eide's credentials would make him an impeccable candidate for any
number of positions in the Federal Government. However, General Counsel
at the Federal Labor Relations Authority is not one of them.
The position to which Mr. Eide was appointed is described under law
as being a neutral party in the settlement of disputes that arise
between Federal agencies and unions on matters outlined in the Federal
Service Labor Management Relations statute. However, for the past 12
years, Mr. Eide has been an outspoken critic of labor protections on
behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. He has consistently supported the
dilution of protections for workers. He opposed OSHA regulations on
safety and health programs, including ergonomics standards. He opposed
provisions of the 1991 Civil Rights Act that provide compensatory
damages and jury trials for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. He advocated a policy that would exempt employers who
hired former welfare recipients from employment discrimination laws for
18 months. He consistently opposed increases in the Federal minimum
wage. I find it disconcerting that someone who has been such a
passionate and unrelenting foe of such labor protections for so many
years would not only seek this position, but feel he is qualified to be
the general counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Looking beyond his former policy positions, Mr. Eide also lacks the
requisite experience with Federal labor-management relations that I
believe this important post necessitates. Most of his recent labor law
experience has been in the private sector representing
[[Page S5741]]
management viewpoints. Nothing in his experience indicates he has the
qualifications to perform a job representing Federal employee labor
concerns.
Given his background, Federal employee labor organizations are
worried about Mr. Eide's ability to perform the functions of his new
post. I believe they have good reason to be concerned. I am submitting
for the Record letters that I have received from Federal labor union
leaders in opposition to Mr. Eide's nomination. I ask unanimous consent
that these documents be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my
statement.
As I have previously stated, Mr. Eide has the qualifications to serve
in hundreds of positions throughout the Federal Government. General
Counsel at the Federal Labor Relations Authority is simply not one of
them.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The National Treasury Employees Union,
March 26, 2003, Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Durbin: The National Treasury Employees Union,
the largest independent union of federal employees,
respectfully opposes the nomination of Peter Eide to be
General Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority
(FLRA).
As members of the Governmental Affairs committee are aware,
the General Counsel of the FLRA is charged with enforcing the
provisions of the Federal Sector Labor-Management Relations
Statute (FSLMRS). The General Counsel directs the operations
of the FLRA's regional offices in their investigation of
unfair labor practices and in their conduct of representation
matters, such as running elections and making appropriate
unit determinations. The General Counsel is the prosecutor
for the FLRA; the incumbent determines, in the first
instance, whether to pursue alleged misconduct and, if so,
under what legal theory. The refusal of the General Counsel
to issue a complaint on an alleged unfair labor practice
charge is unreviewable. If the General Counsel does issue a
complaint, he or she controls the course of the litigation
before the FLRA.
Mr. Eide, in our opinion, is not qualified to perform the
important responsibilities of the position of General
Counsel. Although the General Counsel is the chief
prosecuting lawyer for the FLRA, Mr. Eide has not been a
practicing lawyer since 1990. Moreover, his legal experience
up to the date was confined to private sector labor
relations. There is nothing in his record that indicates any
experience whatsoever in federal sector labor relations,
which differs in many major respects from its private sector
counterpart.
Perhaps even more troubling to NTEU, Mr. Eide's work for
the last twelve years has been as an advocate for the
dilution of statutory protections for employees. As Manager
and then Director of Labor Policy for the Chamber of
Commerce, Mr. Eide has worked to oppose OSHA regulations on
safety and health programs. For example, he has proudly
pointed to this role in spearheading a coalition of
businesses and associations opposing OSHA ergonomics
regulations. He has also worked vigorously to undermine the
Fair Labor Standards Act and to amend Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. In short, there is nothing in this record
to indicate that Mr. Eide would energetically enforce the
statutory protections of the FSLMRS, if confirmed as General
Counsel.
The General Counsel of the FLRA operates, to a large
extent, without review by the members of the Authority or by
any court. If he refuses to pursue allegations of misconduct,
the injured entity has no other legal recourse. This broad
prosecutorial discretion makes the incumbent an extremely
powerful figure in the federal sector labor relations. It
should not be entrusted to one whose career has been devoted
to advocacy of diminution of statutory protections for
workers.
NTEU therefore asks you to oppose the nomination of Peter
Eide to be General Counsel of the FLRA.
Sincerely yours,
Colleen M. Kelley,
National President.
____
American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO
April 9, 2003, Washington, DC.
The Hon. Richard Durbin,
Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Durbin: On behalf of the American Federation
of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, I am writing to express our
opposition to the nomination of Peter Eide to be General
Counsel of the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA).
The General Counsel of the FLRA is, in effect, the chief
prosecutor of unfair labor practices. Over 80 percent of
unfair labor practices in the federal sector are filed by
unions. The General Counsel of the FLRA, therefore, is
primarily called upon to enforce the labor statute on behalf
of unions. Mr. Eide's career, for over the past decade, would
indicate that he is ideologically incapable of performing
this task.
In this regard, our review of his resume clearly shows that
Mr. Eide has spent the last twelve years working for the
Chamber of Commerce as the chief architect of every Chamber
effort opposing every labor initiative. From his opposition
to Senator Edward Kennedy's ergonomics initiative to
promoting a diminution of Fair Labor Standards Act and Equal
Employment Opportunity protections, Mr. Eide's efforts have
been dedicated 100% of the time to opposing the labor
movement and worker-friendly statutes.
Section 7101, the ``findings and purpose'' section of the
Federal Service Labor-Management Relations statute, states
that:
``(a) The Congress finds that--
(1) experience in both private and public employment
indicates that the statutory protection of the right of
employees to organize, bargain collectively, and participate
through labor organizations of their own choosing in
decisions which affect them--
(A) safeguards the public interest.
(B) contributes to the effective conduct of public
business, and
(C) facilities and encourages the amicable settlements of
disputes between employees and their employers involving
conditions of employment; and
(2) the public interest demands the highest standards of
employee performance and the continued development and
implementation of modern and progressive work practices to
facilitate and improve employee performance and the efficient
accomplishment of the operations of the Government.
Therefore, labor organizations and collective bargaining in
the civil service are in the public interest.''
AFGE respectfully submits that Mr. Eide's entire adult
career is inexorably inconsistent and opposed to the stated
Congressional ``findings and purpose'' of Section 7101, and
his nomination should be opposed.
Sincerely,
Bobby L. Harnage, Sr.,
National President.
____________________