Nonsense like this makes me wonder if the author is ignorant or intentionally trying to distort the truth.

1. The case is before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and at the hearing stage. It has not been appealed from the ALJ by either of the parties.

2. Assuming it is appealed from the ALJ to the Board (say Boeing loses and appeals), it will go to a randomly generated subpanel chooser. So one can't know if Becker is even on the case. The system will 2 of the 3 Dem Board members and Republican Hayes. So even if there is an appeal to the Board, you can't know if Becker will hear it.

3. Obama's ethics pledge isn't inconsistent with and doesn't change existing ethics rules. The rule is simple, you can't work on cases involving former clients. If you worked for one union, you can work on cases involving other unions. If you worked for the International you can work for chapters.

4. The union in the Boeing case is the IAM. Becker worked with SEIU. IAM isn't his client, no conflict. Duh.

5. I worked at NLRB. When you get cases with potential conflicts, we tend to opt out or at least get advice from our ethics counsel. I know of no instance where a Board Member simply bulled ahead and took a conflicted case. It not only risks federal criminal charges but state bard discipline and even disbarrment.

6. So for example, I was on a case in which Liebman (a former Teamster's lawyer) knew or worked with one of the officers of a Teamsers local involved in a Board R case. She recused herself. I think Schaumber recused himself from some case because his wife owned stock in the a company in a case.

7. So let me get this straight, nutcases like Issa, would have Becker ignore the law, the rules, and precedent, and recuse himself because he was a union-side lawyer and the case includes a union? So will all the management side people recuse because their cases involve managment? Who will hear cases then.

8. The rules have a practical angle. Board Members and their counsels are conflicted if cases involve former clients. But the mere fact a union or management is involved (which is true in all cases) doesn't conflict out attorneys or Board Members. Everyone one the Board and their staff counsels has worked for either management or unions at some point. The logic of this article would conflict all of them out.

There are plenty of things to criticize about Obama. But this nonexistent ethics violation - HE ISNT EVEN ON THE CASE - is folly.