Worry Grows Over Dem Defections On EFCA

Officials tasked with helping push the Employee Free Choice Act through Congress are growing concerned about the possible defection of Senate Democrats in a debate that is bound to be heated and close.

A senior official involved in getting EFCA passed into law said he was underwhelmed but not surprised by the support being offered for this union priority from the White House and, to a lesser extent, congressional leadership. Part of the issue, he noted, was that the party is in the midst of tackling vast economic challenges, essentially forcing EFCA (and various other key bills) to the backburner. But the new concern was that Republicans may be able to successfully pick off a member of the caucus if the issue comes to a vote.

"There are no guarantees that this thing can get past cloture," said the official. And it's not because of Republican opposition, he added. "You've got Pryor and Lincoln who might not support it. There is Baucus, Landrieu, and even Bayh. And then there is Nelson of Nebraska."

The possibility of Democratic defection has not gone unconsidered among those charting out the EFCA debates. But with some strategists predicting 59 votes in favor of the bill (once Al Franken is seated) the predominance of focus has been paid to which Senate Republican -- usually Sen. Arlen Specter -- could be convinced to cross party lines to help pass cloture.

Democratic leadership has said they want a vote on the matter in late spring or early summer. And with that time frame coming into focus, the lobbying campaign to defeat EFCA appears to be heating up. At the Conservative Political Action Committee, former Speaker New Gingrich let it be known that conservatives "will never forgive somebody who votes for cloture or for passage." On Monday, meanwhile, the New York Times reported that "Republican and business strategists" were focusing their lobbying efforts on "several Democratic senators."

And yet, not everyone is convinced that the bill will come to a vote by early summer, especially if internal whip counts show that Democrats don't have the votes for cloture. Right after the election, union officials were adamant that EFCA be considered within the president's first year in office. Now, however, there seems to be a loosening of the deadline. As the SEIU's Andy Stern told the Huffington Post, in a statement that the aforementioned Democrat called "very telling" for it's open-ended time frame:

"In the end, we have to pass this bill in the House and the Senate. I'm not a congressional strategist, [but] I would say that in the end both houses are going to get to vote. And whatever way makes sense -- where it starts and where it ends is really not that important, as long as in the end everybody understands the importance of getting this job done. Which I believe they do."

UPDATE: Newly appointed Sen. Michael Bennet, it seems, is another Democrat who is up in the air on the Employee Free Choice Act, having yet to decide his position. And according to MyDD, David Canter, who is running for Congress from Colorado's sixth district, has been "applying pressure on Bennet and the entire Colorado congressional delegation to come out strongly and vocally in support of The Employee Free Choice Act."

Comments

[tweedledeedumb]

07:31 AM on 03/05/2009

Make the Republicans filibuster every time...after two laws, the system will be working again.

[PinkysBrain]

04:43 PM on 03/04/2009

If American unions really were as good for the economy as they claim, wouldn't union havens like Detroit and California be relative paradises? Look at the industries where unions flourish; airlines, autos, education, and all levels of government. None of these could be called models of efficiency, or even solvency. I think this is more a testament of where unions are now, then where they came from. A union needs to make consistent gains in wages, conditions, and hours in order to remain relevant to the members. This can lead to overreaching, which is ok in good times, but can push the business toward bankruptcy as soon as the economy turns south. Lastly, aren't we a country that seeks to encourage and reward education? I know I would be pissed if I were a dentist with school debt to pay and saw an autoworker fresh out of high school earning more than I do. Why bother college and med. school?

[CaptTom]

08:14 AM on 03/15/2009

Spot on Chap, give it to them again!

[ModeratePoliticalJunkie]

04:11 PM on 03/23/2009

You can't force businesses to accept unions. That being said, I am a big supporter of unions as long as they provide value. Unions are supposed to be about workers rights. Instead they seem to be more about raising money through increased membership. past links between unions and organized crime is disturbing and hurts the cause of unions. Union members need to understand that NO ONE is guaranteed a job for life. If you perform well you should keep your job - conversely, if you do not perform well you get fired.

Unions must create an environment where:

A. Employers want union workers because they are the best trained and hardest working; and
B. Workers want to join unions becuse of what the Union will offer them in terms of training, education, and other key benefits.

[ChasRidge]

02:01 PM on 03/04/2009

It won't be any senators (of either party) who kill EFCA; it will be Andy Stern, the biggest hypocrite in the land. He wants card check except for those who are already SEIU members who want to get out of SEIU, the most corrupt and anti-democratic gang of racketeers in the labor movement. When SEIU members want to join a different union, the purple jokers react with a full-blown union-busting campaign, just like the bosses they rail against.
If Dandy Andy of the pink scarf wants card check for all workers, he should lead the way and give it to his own members first. Don't they have the right to choose??

[ModeratePoliticalJunkie]

04:14 PM on 03/23/2009

if what you say is true I will NOT support EFCA. I am pro Labor in general but I will not tolerate union corruption, which is just as bad as Corporate corruption. If the unions want public support they better clean up their act - FAST!!

[delphillips]

12:46 AM on 03/03/2009

I don't know why there would even be a question about not having 60 for cloture. I seem to remember a certain REPUBLICAN party that used to scream day and night on the TV "UP OR DOWN VOTE" at the Democrats and the american people anytime they (the dems) threatened a filibuster. It worked everytime; the dems were fearful and caved. I say the dems FORCE the Republicans to filibuster so the american public can see just how uncooperative they really are.

[baddadd47]

11:57 PM on 03/02/2009

I was in the IBEW in California and it is the worst experience I have ever had to go through, I was a Senior Tech in sound and communication and we were treated like step children, we had to pay dues but had onluy 1 member of the executive board and he was an electrician, we paid dues but did not have a vote on OUR contract, when the electricians went on strike WE had to walk the picket lines even though they were not negotiating OUR contract.

I have since moved on and work for a company that hires contractors for electrical and communications and I can safely say I will NEVER hire a union shop. I am still battling the IBEW over my pension whcih they owe me but a stalling on paying out.

[sueinmn]

12:15 AM on 03/03/2009

IBEW gave up many rights because of union weakness around the country. Our contract agreements were made by CIP in Washington. Thats right we did not vote ourselves for years. NECA (National Electrical Contractors Association) manage to pursuade this and we were actually receiving better agreements this way for years. Now NECA wanted to do away with this and figured we were weak enough to take us on their own. NECA does little to help the small comtractor and manily look out for the BIG business contractors. They are finding out we can hold our own with out CIP and still arnt satisfied but its all back in our own hands again. You get to vote and gain strength in numbers again. Im convinced the Republican lobbyists had much to do with this when it happened.
We have full right to strike back which was given up for a few years also. Dont forget your union is only as strong as the membership is. You must be willing to stand behind what you want.

[sueinmn]

12:17 AM on 03/03/2009

As far as your pension, I dont believe they pay out early pensions and you must have your years of service in and retire. Quiting is not a receiving entitlement to an early pay out.

[elmoor]

10:38 PM on 03/02/2009

"Officials tasked with helping push the Employee Free Choice Act through Congress..."

Officials? And for whom do these 'officials' work?

[x004Ronin]

11:38 PM on 03/02/2009

...President Obama, who supports this legislation?

[sueinmn]

11:57 PM on 03/02/2009

Of Course! For the people, by the people!

Why past Governments are always against the people for whom they take the oath to serve are not for the people they serve! We have a Democratic majority for "change".

[OregonRusalka]

10:38 PM on 03/02/2009

Okay, all you people who would like to earn a middle class wage some day, get on the horn to your Senator. Tell those flaky psuedo-Dems that they got elected because working people like you voted for them, and if THEY don't vote for employee free choice, it won't matter how many corporate donations they get to their campaign funds, because you won't vote for them again! Call your Senators, write your Senators! Tell them you want it passed. If we want economic justice in this country -- for people to be fairly paid for their work -- we have to get off our asses and work for it. That means putting pressure on our elected representatives. Go for it!

[sueinmn]

10:16 PM on 03/02/2009

One must look at it this way"
Any time companies are so fearful of the workers gaining something must be good for you! These companies are prepared to spend Millions fighting this rather than pay YOU a fair wage with benefits. WHY?? Pure Greed! Arnt you entitled to a fair living while they reap the benefits of your sweat and labor? Sure its their company, their investments, their neck on the line, BUT its you that make them profitable. You deserve to be treated fairly and at a livable wage. How many employers live wonderfully, multiple homes, boats, planes, trips, excellent standard of living, how many of these very same employers thinks its unamerican to raise even the minimum wage?

Think about it! They are spending litterally Millions to keep you down and out. Why not just spend Millions giving their employees a fair wage and fair treatment? Why so many of them go to China, India and elsewhere? CHEAP LABOR. no enviromental cares, no human rights cares, they simply dont care past their own wallets.

[CaptTom]

07:46 AM on 03/15/2009

The basis of your argument is, you believe “The Bosses” are greedy, so therefore you can be greedy also and take their money. That’s twisted Dude. What if you’re wrong and all “Bosses” are not greedy but simply trying to make their way in this world just like you?

But I guess that doesn’t work for your particular flavor of logic, you just want someone to blame, and someone you can point your finger at and say “You’re the Bad Guy”. I’ll go out on the limb here and say that you’re probably a card carrying Democrat.

Also your comment that “Bosses” go to India or China. Dude, your wife decides this every time she buys something from Wal-Mart like the other 150,000,000 American do on a daily basis. It is called market forces. To rant about “Bosses” like they where some form of base creature is apparently in line with your understanding of the social and economic forces in play.

If you cannot say something helpful, say nothing.

[Graywolf48]

09:28 PM on 03/02/2009

Democrats who vote against EFCA need to be targeted by progressive Democrats in the next primary season. The Democrats must know there will be a price to be paid for their betrayal of the wage earner. Every Democrat that punches a time clock and works for an hourly wage should start pressuring their elected Reps NOW. Don't wait and let the union busters get the momentum. The President need to throw his weight behind this bill.

[sueinmn]

09:34 PM on 03/02/2009

This os going to be a tough one for sure! Probably the fight that will make history if it wins. Too many for too long have believed the myths and spins of union bashing. Everyone needs to really realize where this country has gone (no longer heading but has gone) and we simply cannot survive the wages being inflicted upon us.
Even my established union (IBEW) is fighting mid contract as the contractors are trying to lower our wage. Their was a gray area left open that had nothing to do with wages but they are making it a case. How language is stated is so very important!! More so than the wage at hand.

[VegasDealer]

07:21 PM on 03/02/2009

I am a contract negotiator for the Union dealers where I work. We are in our initial contract negotiations after winning a hard fought election in 2007. The lies and intimidation used by management was horrendous, but we overcame it all. Management played the "fear game" while we were organizing. But we were stronger than them. We won our election. However, the most recent election at another casino lost because they bought into the lies and intimidation of management and their hired union busters.

Now, in negotiations managemet wants to reduce our vacation time by as much as 14 days per year. They want to control our main income (tips) and be able to redistribute our tips to people who do not earn tips at all and are paid salaries. They do not want to recognize seniority in any aspect. They want to be able to fire whoever they want for no reason.

All we want for a contract is status quo. We are not asking for more than what we already have. But they will not agree to that. They want to take away.

The EFCA would allow us to have a Federal Mediator and binding arbitration. Without that, we may reach impasse and then the company can enforce any contract they want.

We are now entering our second year of negotiations and all the company is doing is waiting us out for impasse so they can take from us and add to our CEO's $100MILLION in compensation.

[VegasDealer]

07:31 PM on 03/02/2009

I would also like to add that after over 20 years of dedictaed service, I am still being paid the Federla Minimum wage by my employer. My insurance premiums have tripled over the last few years and what they pay has been diminished.

[MsLiz]

08:22 PM on 03/02/2009

Thanks for your view from the trenches.

[sandals]

07:13 PM on 03/02/2009

I think now is the time to put pressure on our Elected Officials. We should have the right to decide whether or not we want to belong to a union, we should be entitled to better wages, health care, and a clean work environment.

[VegasDealer]

07:36 PM on 03/02/2009

I agree Sandals. However, we must all realize that we must sahre in the profitability of the company and when the company has bad times, we must also share in that as well. We need real balance.

The company I work for just took away the 401(k) match from nearly 50,000 employees, however, because we are in Status Quo under the NLRA, they could not touch ours. We are willing to negotiate our 401(k), but to do so, we want something in return. Something that is a non-economic issue, like "just cause". But the company I work for is bull-headed and will not give us "just cause" because they want to be in complete control and prefer favortism over a job well done.

[MsLiz]

06:29 PM on 03/02/2009

I think this law is a good idea. However, hstorically there were issues with some unions. The United Mine Workers and Teamsters were notoriously corrupt, and some unions were affliliated with organized crime. When EEO laws were passed, employees sometimes had to sue unions due to racial and sexual discrimination. Let's not idealize unions.

Alabama is one of those "right to work: states. We have a lot of poor people too, not becausse they are underpaid but because they are unemployed.

Decades ago it was accurate to say that the University of Alabama stunk. There was a paper mill nearby, owned by Jack Warner. It was unionized. Mr. Warner got tired of the union demands for better pay, and closed his plant. Lucky for me, I didn't attend law school there until after the paper mill was gone.

Employers have an expression here, pardon my language but it is "There's another barefoot [N word] at the gate. That's why Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, and Mercedes have factories in Alabama.

[cinesimon]

06:53 PM on 03/02/2009

And those 'right to work' states subsidize the car companies too, don't they? not just with funds, but by donating land and free utilities?

I agree that idealizing unions isn't thinking much - but they are very important.
The corruption, whilst severe, was such a good story for the papers at the time, that the majority of unions, who were behaving, working hard at representing their members, got tarred with the same brush - hence the ease with which many on the right get to demonize them.

Also, of course times have changed, and the rules for unions are far different to way back when.

The ability for employers to abuse their staff by far outweighs the ability of unions to do same.

[satyriasis]

07:09 PM on 03/02/2009

Well said, cinesimon.

[MsLiz]

08:29 PM on 03/02/2009

Thanks. Yes, I believe Alabama gave tax incentives, built roads and interstate ramps for these companies. Honda and Mercedes are high paying jobs here, without a union.

Our Republican governor, who is better than many we have had, said that he doesn't want the stimulous money for unemployment benefits because it interfere's with the state's authority to write it's own rules. The next day the news told of a church which was going to have a massive prayer service for the unemployed. That's Alabama, magical thinking.

[sueinmn]

09:49 PM on 03/02/2009

How much corruption comes right from the Senate and Legislatures of these states? How many tax dollars are GIVEN to these non union companies to bribie them to be there and then remian almost tax free? I think regardless of issues with certain unions (past/present) people need to look at their everyday needs and how they can better their lives. We can no longer continue this Mexican/Chinese wage competition to the bottom. My God we are heading right towards becoming a 3rd W. nation. look at our infrastructure crumpling, our neglect towards human, enviroment and animal life. we have become what we use to stand against! Personal greed and disregard to the enviroment will take this country down and our own in fighting will finish us off. Companies organize against us, its only right we fight to protect ourselves!

[CaptTom]

08:10 AM on 03/15/2009

I don’t disagree with your concerns about the declining wages in America; however the answer is not necessarily forcing higher wages on Employers. The simple truth is we are in a global economy. Raising the cost of business will result in that business failing to compete in the market. Then the business will fail, the employees will be laid off, where will that get us? I am amazed at how people constantly use the word greed to personify businesses and at the same time wring their hands at how many businesses are failing and how many layoffs are occurring.

We are competing in a global economy with 3rd world nations. This is just the beginning. The return of Marxist forces, as seen in these comments. Defensive legislation, increased tariffs, more government controls, more unions and more socialist programs. The result of this will be inflation, reduced productivity, reduced GNP, further reduced wages and more inflation.

It will be like 1929 and Stagflation all rolled up together, My God this will be fun.

[stunsitfel]

06:09 PM on 03/02/2009

Let's see.....Raise corporate taxes, increase capital gains, increase the personal tax of the people who actually hire people (nobody on this blog). Now let's put on a union without a proper vote.

I dare any of you to start a business in this enviornment. When everyone says "no way I quit" who will pay for this bloated government?

I can't wait for the next reply from another "business student".

[cinesimon]

06:17 PM on 03/02/2009

I'd like to see a friendlier environment in any other country!

What's wrong with going back to the Clinton years? That's all they're doing with regards to taxes - and it worked a treat.

But you angle it, as business always does, that it's the end of business.
That's utter baloney - they said the same with Clinton, and we've never been so prosperous as the Clinton years.

[satyriasis]

07:11 PM on 03/02/2009

We also had much higher taxes in the past as well as much more pro-union laws. We experienced some of the strongest growth in our history in the 40's, 50's, and 60's.

[joetherealist]

07:30 PM on 03/02/2009

Hey, I'm somebody who actually still hires people, and I support President Obama 100%. Now pay your taxes and go back to Town Hall where you belong...

[Gidster]

09:55 PM on 03/02/2009

Several million points out of ten!!!

[kw7777777]

05:35 PM on 03/02/2009

The scare tactics by the Republicans(and surprisingly some ignorant democrats...or maybe thats not so surprising) is laughable. The "Card Check" talking point is clever but ultimately a hollow argument. Higher union membership has always meant a larger and more prosperous middle class. If 30% vote for an open ballot then thats what they get....so once again the card check argument is just a clever talking point.

[MsLiz]

06:32 PM on 03/02/2009

The rise in the middle class is not solely due to unionization. WWII wiped out the rest of the world's manufacturing for twenty years. Conditions are different now.

[satyriasis]

07:16 PM on 03/02/2009

How so? Globalization has created new markets around the world. There has been enormous growth and wealth creation but it has gone to the top 2 percent. We need that the wealth and benefits to be shared. That comes through unionization and stronger social safety nets. Both of those things have been so badly debauched since Reagan that making a few steps now won't do anything drastic.

[CaptTom]

08:28 AM on 03/15/2009

The question is if the union brought prosperity, or if prosperity brought unions? The heydays of industrialization postwar in the 1950’s through the 70’s were also times of hefty union participation. The simple answer is to ask a different question, “What made America Great? The answer to that is; abundant natural resources and cheap labor.

At this time we have neither.

[Chavez08]

05:28 PM on 03/02/2009

Every anti-union loudmouth should have to work one year in a non-union Asian sweatshop because, unfortunately, anti-union trolls either know nothing about labor history and the deadly abuses of management against workers or they're trust-fund babies worried about one of the 9 digits in their portfolio if daddy has to pay living wages.

Either way, every anti-labor shill should have to do one year of labor in an Asian sweatshop (or American - plenty of them now)

[CaptTom]

07:06 AM on 03/18/2009

That is possibly the dumbest comment I’ve read. Just because conservatives are against union control does not equate with conservatives condoning sweat shops. I agree that the Asian sweat shops are a blight on humanity; however you and all consumers endorse them when you purchase their produces on a daily basis. Get real.