It doesn’t take much snow to knock Washington off balance. The weekend blizzard has effectively shut down the town today, when the Senate had been scheduled to vote on the nomination of Harold Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.

Becker is likely to be blocked by a successful Republican filibuster on Tuesday, February 9, now that Sen. Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts, has joined the caucus.

Brown moved up his swearing-in by a week in order to be seated for the vote on Becker, who scares the business community because of what it calls his radical pro-union views.

A professor of law and associate general counsel for two unions—the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO—Becker appeared before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee last week to explain why he argued in academic papers that employers should have no voice in employee representation elections.

His answers failed to assuage Republicans on the panel, two of whom switched their votes to “no” after having voted “yes” on his nomination in the fall. This signals that the GOP is going to stick together on a filibuster.

More fireworks are likely to flare after the filibuster. It looks as if Senate Democrats are recommending that President Barack Obama make a recess appointment when the chamber leaves town for Presidents’ Day week.

If Becker gets a recess appointment, he can serve until the beginning of the next Congress in January. A controversial  NLRB member in the Bush administration, Peter Kirsanow, was given a recess appointment, which lasted from January 2006 to January 2008.

Since January 2008, the five-member board has been operating with just two members. Their decisions over the last two years may be invalidated, if the Supreme Court rules that a truncated board is not sufficient to make rulings. A recess appointment would add to the board two other NLRB nominees—a Republican and a Democrat—because they are being presented as a package with Becker.

So that brings us to the current impasse. In a Capitol Hill press conference shortly after his swearing-in, Brown did not take a position on Becker. But Brown’s arrival on Capitol Hill has changed the calculus for labor-law reform.

With 41 members—just enough to sustain a filibuster—Republicans can block the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow workers to organize by signing cards rather than through a secret-ballot election.

Business groups are framing a vote for Becker as a vote for the act, warning that Becker and the 3-2 NLRB Democratic majority will try to implement aspects of the bill administratively.

Whether the board can do so on its own without a revision in labor law is the subject of debate. What is inevitable is that the NLRB will shift direction—probably 180 degrees—under a Democratic majority.

The question is how much the labor agenda will change now that Brown is in town. His presence instantly put the brakes on the hottest congressional topic—health care reform.

On that issue, Obama has been forced to do something that he should have done from the start—sit down with Republicans and Democrats for a meaningful discussion of how to compromise on ways to improve health care coverage and lower costs.

The president, however, is not making any such bold moves when it comes to business-labor relations. These two groups will be locked in a cage-match death grip for the foreseeable future.

But it doesn’t necessarily have to be that way. For one thing, Brown won about 49 percent of union households in the Massachusetts special election to replace the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

“This will be a good case to see whether he will support the people who supported him,” Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa and chairman of the Senate labor committee, says of the Becker vote.

Maybe Brown will bring the GOP caucus a little to the left on labor law. In addition, unions might not want to pursue Pyrrhic victories, undermining the companies that produce jobs for their members.

“No one is more vested in the long-term health and survival of a company than its employees and their union,” says Erin Johansson, senior research associate at American Rights at Work. “And many unionized firms know this and understand the value that labor-management partnerships bring to the company’s success.”

Eventually, labor and management have to get along in the corporate world. It’s too bad they are resisting a relationship in Washington.

Nearing the end of a long day on Wednesday, I leaned back in my chair and considered whether I really wanted to attend a happy hour that night.

It was being held at a restaurant on the other side of downtown Washington and required adding an extra subway stop to my commute home. Depending on how long it lasted, it might force me to miss part of the State of the Union address.

But my reporter instincts prevailed, and I rallied. This inaugural gathering of ConnectHR—sponsored by the Society for Human Resource Management, SmartBrief and RecruitingBlogs—would give me a chance to develop local HR sources, I thought. In addition, it was a Tweetup, or in-person gathering of folks who Twitter. So, I could learn more about social networking.

When I arrived, I was surprised—flabbergasted—by what I found. I certainly met new HR sources—but almost none of them were local. These Tweeters traveled from as far away as Portland, Oregon, and Florida to attend this two-hour gathering.

This event was not part of a conference. It was not linked to a congressional hearing. It was not the conclusion to a day of meetings at the Department of Labor.

This was a straightforward happy hour at a restaurant called Panache. By the time I left, I was impressed by the travel panache of the attendees—and feeling guilty that I had initially resisted the trek across downtown.

The first question I asked everyone I interviewed: Why on earth did you fly (or drive or take the train) enormous distances for a happy hour? The answer was some variation of this: Even in a socially networked world, personal contact remains fundamental to business and HR.

“Old school is becoming new school,” said Steven Levy, a recruiter at MTM Technologies in New York. “Bricks and mortar makes it real.”

Ryan Estis, a training consultant from Minneapolis, said that Twitter connections are important but become something more when they’re augmented with handshakes.

“When they crystallize into a real relationship, they become valuable,” Estis said.

Lance Haun, an HR Tweeter from Portland, said that Twitter is good for “feeling people out.” A phone call will tell you what you have in common. But it’s meeting in person that establishes the enduring connection.

“This conversation would have taken 100 Tweets,” he said at the end of our five-minute chat in praise of face-to-face interaction.

Looking someone in the eye can also add to the bottom line. Jennifer McClure, vice president of Centennial Inc. in Cincinnati, will launch her own recruiting consultancy in February. She was strengthening her firm’s foundation at the Tweetup.

“I wouldn’t miss it,” she said. “These things invariably turn into business opportunities.”

The event also served as an opportunity for SHRM to connect with what Laurie Ruettimann calls “a new generation of HR leaders.”

Ruettimann, who came in from Raleigh, North Carolina, and writes the blog Punk Rock HR, suggested the Tweetup idea to SHRM and the other sponsors.

“SHRM is demonstrating its relevancy tonight,” Ruettimann said.

China Miner Gorman, SHRM chief global member engagement officer, was at the center of the event, conducting a raffle at one point. I actually crashed the party at Gorman’s invitation.

Gorman has embraced Twitter with gusto. She said it’s good for SHRM to have a presence on the social network.

“It’s a forward fringe,” she said. “They push us and they push HR.”

Sometimes the push is not a pat on the back. Levy is a SHRM member but also has been a SHRM critic on occasion.

For instance, Levy denounces the cost-per-hire metric in recruiting. He said that too much of the HR field, including SHRM, has hewed to that measurement.

He asserts that the recruiting efficiency ratio—all direct and indirect recruiting costs divided by the total compensation of the positions recruited—is a better gauge of recruiting efficacy.

“Most in HR still don’t understand and appreciate the complexity of recruiting,” he said in a follow-up phone interview.

But Gorman is an exception. “China is leading the way,” Levy said. “She gets it.”

The January 27 Tweetup gave Levy a chance to talk with Gorman in person after what have likely been numerous Twitter exchanges.

Gorman argues that SHRM will not become a completely Internet-based organization. The legislative conference in March in Washington and the annual conference in June in San Diego, among many others, are central to its mission and give members an opportunity to learn from one another.

But social networking is quickly growing in importance. “It’s another way to know what we have to deliver to our members and the profession,” Gorman said.

President Barack Obama isn’t dragging a cross of gold around the streets of Washington. Nevertheless, the populist tone he and members of Congress have adopted is probably putting a smile on the face of William Jennings Bryan in political heaven.

After a profound political setback in Massachusetts on January 19—a victory by Republican Scott Brown in a special election to fill the Senate seat previously held by the late Edward Kennedy—the cool, analytical, cerebral Obama has become rhetorically pugilistic. He’s promising to “fight” for jobs and against filthy rich Wall Street financiers.

Obama and his Democratic colleagues are frightened that Massachusetts is a harbinger of more voter anger directed toward them in November’s midterm elections. So they’re turning to a 21st century form of populism that doesn’t apply to the poor so much as to the middle class.

This week, the White House Middle Class Task Force announced several policy initiatives, a couple of which have implications for HR professionals.

Obama is seeking to increase retirement savings by requiring employers that do not offer a retirement plan to automatically enroll their employees in a direct-deposit IRA. Other plans involve increasing support for families caring for elderly relatives and doubling the child care and dependent care tax credit.

Look for Obama to mention these ideas in his State of the Union speech Wednesday, January 27. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the focus on jobs and the economy is providing an opening for pay legislation.

In a press conference call Tuesday January 26, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, indicated that the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would soon hold a hearing on the Paycheck Fairness Act. The measure would allow plaintiffs to sue for unlimited compensatory and punitive damages and force employers to prove that pay discrepancies are based on factors other than sex.

The measure was approved by the House in January 2009 along with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. At the time, the Senate acted only on the Ledbetter bill, which made it easier for workers to sue for sexual discrimination.

The Ledbetter bill became the first that Obama signed into law. Days before the anniversary of that event, Dodd was pressing for action on the paycheck bill.

He predicted that the impasse over health care reform would be resolved within a month to six weeks.

“That will give us a chance to make this issue a major agenda item,” he said, conveying a commitment from Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa and labor committee chairman, to hold a hearing. “We’re going to keep plugging on … and get this done.”

Dodd and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Connecticut, argue that in many families men have lost jobs, forcing women to pick up the pay slack. They are then undermined by unfair compensation scales at work.

Dodd almost dares Republicans to filibuster the Paycheck Fairness Act. “The facts make the case,” Dodd said. “I’d love to hear the arguments against this. I welcome the debate.”

The populist bent on Capitol Hill also has a talent management angle. On Friday, January 22, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, held a hearing on executive compensation.

Frank led the House to passage of a bill last fall that would institute say-on-pay rules that give shareholders a chance to voice their feelings about C-suite remuneration. It’s clear that he wants to do more.

He spent part of his recent hearing questioning one of the arguments against limiting pay for financial executives. Opponents say that such restrictions will make it impossible for banks and other institutions to find the talent they need to turn themselves around.

Presumably, the Wall Street wizards will look for employment elsewhere. Joseph Stiglitz, a professor at the Columbia University business school, said society would benefit from an exercise to “reallocate this human capital.”

He was preaching to the choir.

“Maybe if we had more family physicians and less people doing mathematical models, it wouldn’t be such a bad thing,” Frank said.

The populist rumblings on Capitol Hill will continue until the economy improves, potentially giving HR professionals more to do.

In the HR of politics, you rarely see someone get voted out of office, or “fired,” by constituents. Over the last decade or two, redistricting has created House seats so safe in their partisan composition that they are almost hermetically sealed. It’s also enormously difficult to beat a Senate incumbent.

Usually, substantial change in congressional membership requires a national wave of voter discontent, as was the case in 1994 and, to a lesser extent, 2006. And in 2008, President Barack Obama and other Democrats were able to tap into electoral resentment about the recession and general direction of the country.

The problem for Obama is that anger is still prevalent and now being focused on Democrats. That’s why everyone in Washington is riveted on the outcome of a special election on Tuesday, January 19, for the Massachusetts Senate seat previously held by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

In one of the “bluest” states in the nation, it once was almost inconceivable that Republican state Sen. Scott Brown could beat Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley.

But even in Massachusetts there seems to be widespread concern about the cost and scope of the health care overhaul bill nearing the finish the line on Capitol Hill. The voter unrest that led to uprisings at town hall meetings during the August congressional recess is now evident in New England.

The Bay State seat is crucial because a Republican win would give the GOP 41 members in its Senate caucus—enough to sustain a filibuster against health care and an array of other Democratic bills. This threat is real because Republicans demonstrate extraordinary cohesion when they’re in the minority.

The importance that the White House places on the Massachusetts race was evident when Obama made a January 17 campaign appearance with Coakley.
 
“We know that on many of the major questions of our day, a lot of these … measures are going to rest on one vote in the United States Senate,” Obama said.

Unfortunately, the Massachusetts opening was created by a death rather than a retirement. But two recent retirement announcements—Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, and Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut—have put once solid Democratic seats into play.

This means that even if Coakley wins on Tuesday, Democrats know that maintaining a 60-vote caucus in the Senate will be difficult. All the Republicans have to do is pick up one Senate seat in November to bring the Democratic legislative agenda to a screeching halt in the “upper house.”

Given these developments, organized labor will have to flex its political muscle with Obama to get a vote on the Employee Free Choice Act before time runs out on the bill.

Even though the measure has been stalled since its March introduction by lack of support from moderate Senate Democrats, don’t count labor out. EFCA, which would make it easier for workers to form unions, is its highest priority.

You can bet they’ll work as hard for EFCA as they did to protect union workers from the excise tax on high-cost insurance plans in the health care bill. Labor leaders spoke up about the tax, and Obama listened.

Of course, labor will be met head-on by a business lobby that is just as fired up to stop EFCA. It could be the biggest Capitol Hill donnybrook of 2010.

As I said in a previous post, labor has invested enormous financial and grass-roots resources to achieve a Democratic takeover of the White House and to increase Democratic majorities on Capitol Hill. They’re not going to let that effort go to waste.

In fact, labor stepped into the Massachusetts race to help Coakley. If she wins, it can claim some credit. Even if she loses, they can show they were good soldiers for the Democrats.

If she loses, EFCA will face an almost impossible hill to climb in the Senate. Supporters would need to find at least one GOP vote. Or they could try to change Senate rules to pass the bill by a straight majority, a move that will generate Republican outrage.

Whether Brown wins or loses Tuesday, the clock is ticking on the Democrats.

Congress missed several White House-imposed deadlines for completing health care reform legislation in 2009. This year, Capitol Hill is poised to meet a timeline benchmark, producing a final bill prior to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech in early February.

In an attempt to accelerate the potentially arduous process of reconciling House and Senate versions of health care legislation, congressional leaders have decided to skip a formal conference committee.

This move will eliminate Republicans from the negotiations. Democrats will say that GOP participation doesn’t matter because only one Republican in Congress voted for the House or Senate measures.

As Democrats speed the final bill to the finish line, it’s not just Republicans who are in danger of being left behind. Liberals and organized labor may have to swallow hard and accept a final bill that falls far short of their dreams.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, had to struggle to get all 60 members of the Democratic caucus on board with the measure that the Senate approved on Christmas Eve.

Reid struck deals that included jettisoning a government-run insurance plan, or public option—leaving a priority for liberals and labor on the cutting room floor.

Unions have a serious problem with another provision that seems to be surviving the health care fray.

The Senate bill includes an excise tax of 40 percent on health insurance plans that are valued at more than $23,000 per year for families and $8,500 for individuals. Labor leaders prefer the House financing mechanism, a 5.4 percent surtax on wealthy Americans.

Labor leaders have vehemently opposed the Senate tax, arguing that it undercuts health benefits that workers have earned in lieu of salary increases.

“It’s a tax on working families,” Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America, said in a mid-November interview. “It will destroy the decent health care plans we’ve negotiated.”

The business community is allied with labor in trying to put the kibosh on the tax. They say that plans may cross the “high-cost” threshold because of the location of the workforce and other demographic factors having nothing to do with the richness of the health care benefits.

It may be more difficult for labor to influence a truncated House-Senate conference. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa and chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, indicated on December 21 that the excise tax likely will survive in the final legislation. 

“Yes, but it’s possible the [tax threshold] might be raised,” Harkin told reporters.

If that is the outcome, unions nonetheless will fall in line and support a final bill—praising it for covering tens of millions of people currently uninsured and eliminating insurance discrimination for pre-existing conditions.

But I wonder whether organized labor will quietly seethe. For all the financial and grass-roots investment that unions made to get Obama and other Democrats elected, they have yet to score major breakthroughs on their priorities.

Their time may come after the final health care bill is settled. In fact, unions may be able to achieve some of their health care goals in follow-up legislation.

“This is the beginning,” Harkin said. “I dare say even next year we may be doing something to modify and complement what we pass. [The public option] is so vital and so important that it’s going to be revisited.”

Harkin is passionate in his support of unions. Their agenda won’t lie fallow much longer.