Labor Board Nominee

President Clinton has nominated our colleague and friend, Prof. Bill Gould of Stanford Law School, to be chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. Because Gould’s writings support freedom for workers to affiliate with labor organizations of their own choosing and the collective-bargaining process--the explicit goals of the National Labor Relations Act--he has become the object of extremist attacks that frequently distort the record. Paul Craig Roberts’ Column Right (Oct. 31) is an especially unsavory example.

Roberts begins by asserting that Gould’s views are “similar” to those of a judge whom he states is an apologist for black criminals. Reminding us of the Willie Horton rhetoric of the 1988 presidential campaign, Roberts suggests that Gould, who would be the first black chairman of the National Labor Relations Board in its nearly 60 years of existence, is eccentric or radical.

Roberts could not be more off the mark. As a law professor and arbitrator, who has rendered a majority of awards in favor of employers, Gould has been consistently viewed as both moderate and impartial.

Roberts says that Gould will “ . . . restrain management’s ability to communicate with the work force prior to a union certification vote.” In fact, in Gould’s recent book, “Agenda for Reform,” he has written that labor law reform should expand employer free speech rights in union organization efforts--not limit them.

Roberts further asserts that Gould favors compelling all workers to accept union representation where only a minority favor it. In fact, the proposal to which Roberts refers quite clearly applied to “members only” bargaining. Gould suggested that Congress require that, where 20% to 30% of the work force so requested, employers bargain collectively, but only with the consenting workers.

Roberts’ suggestion that Gould does not support the secret ballot is equally unfounded. Gould favors the secret ballot in all union elections. His proposal that unions be recognized without elections applies only where a super-majority of workers--60%--have voluntarily signed authorization cards.

All of these proposals have been advanced as suggestions for legislative revision, not as interpretations of the existing law, which Gould, as chairman, would be sworn to uphold. Roberts’ suggestion that Gould would betray his duty to enforce enacted law is completely unsupported character assassination.

We know Gould as a man of unimpeachable integrity and as one who has consistently brought a balanced, moderate approach to labor-management relations. His nomination represents one of the best opportunities to diminish the conflict and polarization which have plagued labor and management for most of this century.

HERMAN LEVY, Professor

Santa Clara University School of Law

WILLIAM H. SIMON, Professor

Stanford Law School