McCaskill: I'm Not Sure We Have Votes On Employee Free Choice Act

Sen. Claire McCaskill said Sunday she was unsure whether she and her fellow Democrats had the votes needed to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, during an appearing on ABC's "This Week."

Asked to convince her co-panelist Tom Donohue, the CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to get on board the legislation -- which the business community regards as something between the demise of civilization and Armageddon itself -- McCaskill said she had no such illusions about her powers of persuasions. She also offered a dire take on EFCA's chances.

"I'm not sure if we have the votes and I have no hope of backing Mr. Donohue off," said the Missouri Democrat. "I would say that I think it would be fair that we have a secret ballot for the decertification of unions. Right now, businesses can go with the card check. There is no secret ballot to get rid of a union. But there is a requirement of that for people to be able to organize. And to me that seems unfair. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Let's get people on a level playing field ... Until they do that I'm not sure they have a lot of room to complain."

Donohue, as expected, remained unconvinced, responding that "the loss of the secret ballot and the 16 other issues that labor unions want is another weight on this economy."

Union officials have insisted over the past few weeks that they have the 60 votes in the Senate needed to cut off debate on the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow more and easier venues for unions to organize. The Huffington Post reported a week ago that there was angst among Democrats about their caucus being 100 percent on board. But officials in the labor community say they're unconcerned, even suggesting that they have more than one Republican willing to cross the aisle.

Comments

[ron071]

11:06 AM on 03/10/2009

It's long past time when most working people understand that unions are the only effective means by which most working people can progress. Propaganda by the business front groups goes as far as the ignorance of working people allow. The unions now face the primary task of EDUCATION of working people and even those in the red south. Yes, it seems quite clear that the decline in working conditions, salaries, job security and benefits directly correlates with the decline in union membership. That fact cannot be denied.

[care4mypeeps]

09:45 AM on 03/10/2009

Sen. Claire McCaskell is representing the Party well and has a clear message that will drum up support for the Employee Free Choice Act. This is another example of the Media allowing the Republicans to dominate the News cycle with lies about the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Democrats have to turn cart wheels to get their message out when the Republicans are greeted with a hero's welcome with tainted information that is rarely put in check.

Media do your job and prevent the Republicans from rushing to the micrphones with their coordinated lies that is circulated everywhere.

[dlockatl]

01:38 PM on 03/09/2009

I have a question for all of you union people on this blog. How much do you pay each payday for your insurance...medical, dental, life, LTD and STD? Before tax not the pre0tax result?

I have a point and I will make it after I get some answers.

[MeritMan]

12:11 PM on 03/09/2009

Where does the Congresswoman get her information that decert elections are "card check" decisions, with no secret ballot? She said: "I would say that I think it would be fair that we have a secret ballot for the decertification of unions. Right now, businesses can go with the card check. There is no secret ballot to get rid of a union."

I think she was confused on her talking points. If unions could be decertified with card check, maybe more employers would be willing to allow card check "elections."

There were 27 secret ballot elections to decertify unions in the first half of 2008 http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/brochures/Election%20Reports/ER2008/June2008.pdf and 51.9% resulted in decertifying the union.

Same thing with the confiscatory unfair labor practice fines. If the unions where held to the same standards and fined for ULP violations, I think employers would be much more favorable to Card Check. But Card Check is a one-way street to economic disaster and a job-killer.

Employee NO Choice Act takes away the secret ballot if 50+1 sign those cards. There is no choice, no debate, no discussion of consequences, no decision by the 49% who do not sign the cards. Unions win 60% of the secret ballot elections now.

Under existing law, 30% or more signatures are enough to call a secret ballot election - there is no need for Card Check to get that "option."

[Yermammy]

01:20 PM on 03/09/2009

Uh, yeah. 49% don't want to earn more and get better health care. Go away sweat shop owner. Nice try, but no cigar.

[RoloTomassi]

01:25 PM on 03/09/2009

"But Card Check is a one-way street to economic disaster and a job-killer."

Utter nonsense; the downside of this issue amounts to very greedy people who are unwilling to decrease their profits. The only people a vast unionization of US labor would hurt are the of the same selfish socio-political ilk as Wall St. bankers; there is no question that the banks we've bailed out [thrown away our money on, is more like it] could have been proactive in reducing foreclosures and renegotiating loans--but they have mostly refused. Why? Greed and self-interest.

There has never been a sound argument for the absurd war on unions here in the US, and there's not one now. Can unions be more flexible, better team players, better organizations for their members? Of course the answer is YES to all of those points, but it is a intellectual failure to disregard the environment that unions were born into and have had to fight against from the beginning--they know, beyond any doubt, that the conservative corporatists in this country want to destroy them all, and to continue to marginalize and beat down those in the labor pool. US business have the unions to face in there current form because of the insane opposition they have alway focused on unions.

[pittsburghunionguy]

11:34 AM on 03/09/2009

Some of the commentators here seem to have no idea what happens in an National Labor Relations "secret ballot" election. The union petitions the NLRB for an election and turns in cards signed by workers saying they want a union. Most unions get 60 to 70% to sign before they take this step. The NLRB then schedules a vote for a month later -- sometimes much longer. The employer and its "union avoidance consultants" use that time to terrorize the workers during virtually every hour they're at work, threatening loss of pay, benefits, and their jobs if they join the union. They interrogate workers one-on-one, and by the time of the election, they know how most people will vote -- and have scared a significant portion of pro-union workers into voting no. These elections are about as "free and fair" as the one Mugabe "won" in Zimbabwe.

[LucieLee]

10:43 AM on 03/09/2009

Folks like Donohue have never been pro Union, so I thought putting Sen. McCaskill on the spot like that, really wasn't fair. I really am getting sick and tired of Democrats not getting a fair shake when they come on these shows, and the folks who tend to be leaning towards GOPers, are allowed to either have an easy time wallowing in fluff, or allowed to run rough-shot over the other side, especially when there isn't a commentator on the networks brave enough to hold them to account.

[ohiomark]

10:32 AM on 03/09/2009

If you take away the secret ballot for voting on unions, you cannot call it a "Free Choice" act.

If you have the fear that a union thug will show up at your house if you vote against the union or that your employer will punish you if you vote for the union, then having a secret ballot is VERY important.

Why are the unions so afraid of the secret ballot?

[Zenfull]

11:41 AM on 03/09/2009

ohiomark: Your prejudice of unions is clear with your characterization of union organizers as "thugs". I will educate you. The National Labor Relations Act currently allows for employees to sign a card asking for union representation. When a majority of employees sign such a card, the NLRA says that they will be submitted to the company as the will of the employees to be represented. The employer on the other hand has the right to challenge the cards and request a secret ballot election which they always do even when 100% of the employees have requested union representation. So union organizers have always submitted many more signatures than 50% + 1 (usually 75% or more of the employees) to ensure they can win any representation election called for by the employer. The employers pay millions of dollars to organizations to campaign against union representation and spend months and even years strectching out the election process to wear down the employees, the union resources and to intimidate employees. The Employee Free Choice Act removes barriers to unions to effectively organize and levels the playing field. This country's middle class was created by unions by implementation of good wages, health beneftis, pensions, equal rights and fairness on the job, and health and safety reform which affected the Union worker and salaried, non-union employees alike. The direct decline of the Middle Class is directly related to the decline of union membership in this country.

[ohiomark]

12:16 PM on 03/09/2009

You still didn't answer my question as to why the unions are afraid of the secret ballot.

[Okieborn]

09:37 AM on 03/09/2009

Employee Free Choice Act !!! Yes !!!

[slarabee]

05:42 AM on 03/09/2009

If I decide that there is no hope I fear that there will be no hope for tomorrow and no hope for my Hope or my Alana.

Those are my girls.

[Jaybot]

12:44 AM on 03/09/2009

So, after failing to support labor (Organized or not) for some 40 years, the Democrats are signaling that they plan on continuing the policy. Maybe the US needs a Labour Party of its own.

[slarabee]

01:27 AM on 03/09/2009

I pray that this is not the case but I fear you may be correct.

[DosGatos2]

02:17 PM on 03/09/2009

An interesting idea. Thanks!

[somsoc]

09:56 PM on 03/08/2009

EFCA is an absolute must for the working people of America. The fascist corporations must be made to answer for their treatment and mistreatment of workers and the lousy pay scales and benefit packages they impose while their pampered executives that do diddly walk away with 6 and 7 figure salaries, bonuses, and fringe benefits galore. They treat the people that create their products, that work in the trenches every day, like serfs.

[slarabee]

08:31 PM on 03/08/2009

It is strange to me that I posted lots of info links and opinions by economists and statisticians etc... and none of the anti-union commentators here would say a word. They just ignore it and then kepp saying the same untrue rhetoric. It really is telling about the weakness of your arguments.

[heavysole]

06:10 AM on 03/09/2009

Ronald Reagan villified unions. He was the biggest union buster of them all.

Now here we are, 30 years later, corporations have all of the same protections and rights we give to individual people and they are rewarded by our very own government for taking their companies overseas with little to no tarriffs or duties paid for bringing these products into the United States.

If the US were charging fair tarriffs as other counties charge us for our exported goods into their countries, alot of this BS would come to a screeching halt.

This nation needs to put up it's own iron curtain for inbound foreign produced goods.

If you want to sell it here, you pay fair import tarriffs. Period. And we don't care if you ARE and American based company. Not made on US soil, you will be charged as all foreign imports should be charged.

[enochsmoky]

12:35 PM on 03/09/2009

Reagan fired the air traffic controllers because they overplayed their hand and started an illegal strike. The air traffic controllers gave Reagan no choice except to capitulate to their demands or fire them. Be careful how you use government granted union power because it can be used against you under the right circumstances. At the time, the general public overwhelmingly supported Reagan's decision and if you took a poll now I would bet that they still do.

[buckeyedave]

07:56 PM on 03/08/2009

yes we need the employee" free" choice act. after all we have such horrible working conditions that we have people illegally sneaking into the country to work for half the wages that the repressed American workers will. I work for a nonunion company and make a good living and get my health care completely paid for. all this without a college education hence no student loans. it seems that higher education is as over rated as a good work ethic is under rated. if people in America would only put as much effort in being productive as they do blaming others for their plight and would have practiced financial discipline we would not be in the mess we are in.

[RedneckDem]

08:07 PM on 03/08/2009

Uh... I think the reason we need to free choice act is to protect American workers so that our country doesn't become like one of those third world countries that you made your point with...
Its like you dont even like your own argument or you are a hypocrit. BTW, I'm happy that you made your lot in life, but don't you think its a bit narcissistic to assume that since your ok then everyone else must be too?

[slarabee]

08:22 PM on 03/08/2009

I agree with RedneckDem.

It is rather trite of you to assume that because the company you work for rewards hard work and provides health insurance and good working conditions that all employers do. Nothing could be further from that truth.

Case in point the Peanut Corp. Not only did they endanger the consumers (us) they endangered their employees.

[All57States]

07:40 PM on 03/08/2009

Democrats are for the secret ballot on union votes in Mexico, but not for the secret ballot in the US.

http://www.employeefreedom.org/downloads/mexico_letter.pdf

Hypocrites.

Change We Can Believe In.

[slarabee]

08:10 PM on 03/08/2009

You are either seriously confused about the bill or are willingly buying into the rhetoric. The EFCA does not take way the right to vote by secret ballot. It leaves the "Choice" to the employees rather than with management hence the "EMPLOYEE Free CHOICE Act".

[All57States]

08:21 PM on 03/08/2009

Right the union has the choice to come to your house, your kid's ball games, or run into you at the supermarket, offering the "choice" to sign the card. I'm guessing you have never worked in union enviroment.

[ambeeeant]

09:09 PM on 03/08/2009

Don't know where you got the image of that letter but it's phony. There exists no such letter. It has been falsely composed and displayed just to make a political point where none actually exists. Get your facts straight.

[MeritMan]

11:46 AM on 03/09/2009

This letter is all over the Internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unioncertsecretballotletter.jpg

If it is phony, why doesn't Snopes list it? Why doesn't Cong. Miller have a disclaimer on his website?

Where is your proof that it is phony?

[harrymellon]

07:36 PM on 03/08/2009

She shouldve been commerce sec.

[wdw505]

07:56 PM on 03/08/2009

"shouldve" wow

[Megan97401]

08:48 PM on 03/08/2009

Somebody missing an apostrophe warrants your scorn? After all, you missed punctuation in your snide comment.

Or is it that you don't realize should've is an acceptable contraction?