COLUMN LEFT/ HARRY BERNSTEIN : The Right Man to Lead Reform of Labor Law : Bill Gould, praised by both labor and management, is bad news to the anti-union far right.

President Clinton leaned only slightly to the left by nominating the moderate Stanford law professor William Gould IV as chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.

Yet his appointment, as non-controversial as it should be, has triggered opposition from some corporate executives and right-wing congressional Republicans, who fear Gould may orchestrate opposition to their attempts to create a “union-free environment” in the United States.

The Senate should quickly confirm Gould’s nomination and ignore the forces of reaction that want to eliminate unions and let corporate moguls rule their domains with little or no “interference” from workers or their unions.

Bill Gould’s opponents know that while he supports the concepts of collective bargaining and unionism, he isn’t anti-management. In fact, he prides himself on being neutral. A widely respected labor scholar, he is praised often by both sides when he serves as an arbitrator in labor-management disputes. He will be the first black to head the NLRB, the pivotal agency enforcing America’s labor laws.

With so many pluses going for him, it’s a wonder why there have even been hints of a Republican effort to kill his nomination. The reason is that Gould and others who share his beliefs want to put an end to the blatant anti-union tactics of many employers, tactics commonplace under the Republican adminstrations of Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush.

There is no doubt that Gould believes well-run unions, chosen freely by workers, have a vital role to play in society. That kind of thinking isn’t popular in many management circles.

In his latest book, “Agenda for Reform,” Gould declares that “unions are the most effective advocates of employee interests in the workplace.”

He also argues that unions effectively promote the interest of all workers and their families on such issues as comprehensive medical care, increases in minimum wages and expanded education opportunities.

That kind of mildly progressive thinking scares foes of workers’ rights, who for years have been able to depend on the weakness of our labor laws and a generally pro-business, anti-union NLRB to beat down workers and their unions.

America is already less unionized than any other major industrial nation. Unions today represent only 12% of the nation’s private-sector work force, down from the 45% or so they represented in the 1950s.

One reason for that dramatic decline has been conservative rulings by members of the Republican-dominated NLRB. Equally destructive have been the seemingly endless delays corporate lawyers can create by fighting the few board decisions that are not anti-union.

Just one example: Last June 22, the NLRB finally opened challenged ballots from a union representation election held in 1989. Corporate lawyers for a small Pennsylvania mine waged a costly legal battle for four long years to prevent counting of the challenges. Ultimately the NLRB agreed to open the 13 challenged ballots, all of which went to the union. But what a waste of time and money.

Now the United Mine Workers of America can legally represent those workers. Yet that doesn’t end the possibility of more company stalling to prevent the workers from getting a contract--another reason why we need labor-law reform, as Gould advocates.

The law must be neutralized by Congress and state clearly that in a free society, unions should be an integral part of our economic system.

Gould puts some of the blame on unions for their weakened status, correctly contending that they don’t put nearly enough effort into organizing new members.

What really infuriates his foes, though, are remarks like this, from his new book: “The existence of a strong and independent trade-union movement has an important public-policy function in a democratic society.”

If he is confirmed, Gould and those who think as he does may diminish the power of the rabid right-wing, anti-union forces. All the more reason, then, that the President must stand firmly behind his NLRB nominee.