Specter Will Vote Against Employee Free Choice Act

UPDATE: Senator Specter ended speculation on where he would come down on the Employee Free Choice Act by declaring, on the Senate floor, that he would oppose the legislation until the economy improves.

"The problems of a recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employee's choice legislation," he said. "Employers understandably complain that adding a burden would result in further job losses. If efforts are unsuccessful to give labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the [National Labor Relations Act] then I would be willing to reconsider Employees choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy. I am announcing my decision now because I have consulted with a very large number of interested parties on both sides and I have made up my mind."

Addressing the politics of the situation, he declared: "This announcement should end the rumor mill that I have made some deal for my political advance. I have not traded my vote in the past and I would not do so now."

Labor officials are incredibly distraught and, in some cases incredulous, noting the Specter co-sponsored the bill in 2003 and voted for cloture just last year. But while it is a setback for the legislation's chances, Democrats are not conceding defeat. According to the Huffington Post's Ryan Grim, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared after Specter's speech that "He's not the only Republican who has indicated a willingness to consider something being done... He's not the only suspect."

* * * * *

Some big news emerged Tuesday in regards to the debate over the Employee Free Choice Act, with a prominent Republican strategist declaring that Sen. Arlen Specter will vote against cloture on and passage of the bill.

Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist broke the news during a speech at the Capital Research Center Labor Summit, saying that Specter's chief of staff had let it be known that he would oppose the legislation, which would make it easier for unions to organize. Norquist's remarks were subsequently reported on the Twitter account of Larry Farnsworth -- the former Speechwriter and Deputy Press Secretary to Speaker Dennis Hastert -- and seconded by Dave Weigel of the Washington Independent.

If true, it represents a major blow for EFCA supporters. Specter was the one Senate Republican to vote for cloture when the bill came to the floor in 2007. And with 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster, his defection presents a major parliamentary hurdle for the legislation's passage.

The Pennsylvania Republican is likely to face a major primary challenge from Club For Growth president Pat Toomey in the 2010 election, which may have factored into this apparent decision.

Said Toomey of Specter's announcement: "It's nice to see Sen. Specter reverse his position in a positive direction on card check, but I wish it didn't take primary opposition to get him to do it."

Story continues below

On the other side of the political coin, several unions had let it be known that they would have put their political muscle behind the Senator had he voted to support EFCA.

According to an attendee at the CRC Labor Summit, Norquist "was giving a speech at lunch time" when he told the crowd: 'By the way I have breaking news. When I was eating lunch I got a call from Specter's Chief of Staff saying he was voting against cloture.' [The Chief of Staff] had apparently read a prepared statement to Grover over the phone and the Senator's office will apparently be releasing that statement later today."

A call and email to Americans for Tax Reform were not immediately returned.

UPDATE: From Americans for Tax Reform's twitter account:

Sen. Specter has confirmed to Americans for Tax Reform that he will vote against both cloture and passage on the Employee Free Choice Act

Labor officials, meanwhile, are nervous about the development, though one cautioned that this could be another example of "Norquist overreaching."

Comments

[republicants]

Hardly a Death Blow to the Act - some form will pass. Rather it is likely a Death Blow to Arlen's chances for re-election. Forget Toomey, Senator - not your roots. You can't win the Republicant nomination this time.

[Mdazes]

I have one question "Why have the clowns in Washington seat on their a@@es for 8 years and saved everything for 2009?

[Ramirez]

From George McGovern:
****

My Party Should Respect Secret Union Ballots Article
By GEORGE MCGOVERN

As a congressman, senator and one-time Democratic nominee for the presidency, I've participated in my share of vigorous public debates over issues of great consequence. And the public has been free to accept or reject the decisions I made when they walked into a ballot booth, drew the curtain and cast their vote. I didn't always win, but I always respected the process.

Voting is an immense privilege.

That is why I am concerned about a new development that could deny this freedom to many Americans. As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor.

The legislation is called the Employee Free Choice Act, and I am sad to say it runs counter to ideals that were once at the core of the labor movement. Instead of providing a voice for the unheard, EFCA risks silencing those who would speak. ...

***
read the whole thing at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815502467222555.html

[joebloe]

See here that EMPLOYERS can de-certify(get rid of) a union with simple majority.!!!!

No election!!!!

They don't even need written proof.

http://washlaborwire.com/2008/12/02/nlrb-general-counsel-issues-guidelines-on-employer-withdrawal-of-recognition/

[Ramirez]

If the workers wish to cease union representation they have the right to do so and there is a process in place for them to express their wish.

[Osusuki]

How sad that a one-time warhorse of the Democratic Party and the Progressive Movement is beginning to dodder and drool in his old age!

[Ramirez]

McGovern is old school and he always believed in the secret ballot.

[IndieBlue]

He's wrong on two points:

"And the public has been free to accept or reject the decisions I made when they walked into a ballot booth, drew the curtain and cast their vote. I didn't always win, but I always respected the process."
-The "public" (in this case, the workers) are not free. Those who support a union are at an inherit disadvantage because those who do not support the union (management) have tremendous leverage over them, which they often exercise through, among other means, mandatory all-employee meetings where they are the only ones with the right of free speech, one-on-one interrogations and the denial of the use of the workplace to organize. It's not as if McGovern could deny those who did not support him the right to organize or threaten them with the prospect of losing their jobs.

"As a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor."
-The ability to form a union with a simple card check majority was enshrined in the original Wagner Act of 1935. This tenant has been upheld in multiple Supreme Court decisions since then. Indeed, today, approximately 80% of new unions are formed via card-check, through neutrality agreements with employers. The currently proposed legislation does not substantially alter either the spirit or the letter of the law.

[Ramirez]

Watch principled liberal George McGovern speak out in opposition to the deceptively named "Employee Free Choice Act."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afjp4Cx-3W0


wiki:
George Stanley McGovern, (born July 19, 1922) is a former United States Representative, Senator, and Democratic presidential nominee. McGovern lost the 1972 presidential election in a landslide to incumbent Richard Nixon. As a decorated World War II combat veteran, McGovern was noted for his opposition to the Vietnam War.

Appointed (1961) by U.S. President John F. Kennedy as the worldwide director of the Food for Peace program, he remained a longtime leader in ensuring nutrition and food security as a means to fight poverty and political instability. McGovern was appointed United Nations Ambassador on World Hunger in 2001. In 2008, he and Senator Bob Dole were named the 2008 World Food Prize Laureates for their work to promote school-feeding programs globally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern

[joebloe]

I suspect Mr McGovern is unaware that an employer may get rid of a union with a simple majority "card check" petition or voice vote.

NO secret ballot required for the employer, but it is for the employees who would like a union.

http://washlaborwire.com/2008/12/02/nlrb-general-counsel-issues-guidelines-on-employer-withdrawal-of-recognition/

[Ramirez]

The employees must first generate the petition and then the employees must win the decertification election in order to oust the union.
From Hotel Online:
****

The National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) provides a process for employees to petition the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) for a “decertification election” which can lead to the termination of the union’s status as bargaining agent. Only employees may petition for such decertification once they have obtained signatures from at least 30% of the employees/union members who are considered part of the bargaining unit. Once the employees have filed a petition, a hearing is usually conducted before the Board to determine the appropriateness of the petition, the Board’s jurisdiction and the union’s status as a labor organization. Following the hearing, the Board will typically issue a decision regarding whether or not the petition is appropriate and can proceed to an election. The election will usually be held within four to six weeks from the time employees file the petition. To prevail in ousting the union, the employees need a simple majority of those who actually vote; not a majority of those in the bargaining unit. Ties go to the union.

http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2002_2nd/Apr02_Decertifying.html

[pghperson]

With all due respect to Senator Specter from a fellow Pennsylvanian, I'm a bit surprised at his choice given the history of Pennsylvania in steel. But now that I think back on it, Big Steel and their unions, which did do a lot of good for the workers, are long gone. I truly do not know what to think about this issue.

[jukesgrrl]

He's against it until his primary is over. Then, I foresee a change of heart. He believes in nothing except Arlen Specter.

People of Pennsylvania, PLEASE wake up and remove this roadblock to progress.

[rucognizant]

Response to the 2 above comments. WHile of course I would rather see a Democratic Senator in PA. I am OUTRAGED, outraged I say, that once again a rabid crazed conservative is influencing the outcome of politics. If Toomey is from the CLub for Growth, he is a despicable piece of _______ fill in the blank. ( Attend his rallys and throw rotten eggs at him, don't target Spector! )
When they actively swiftboated the ( 2004)Democratic Presidential bid, and put THAT ad on TV: The latte drinking, volvo driving 'libruls" I was so steamed I pretended to want to join and they sent me their literature.
Their ill-designed logo, ( probably done by one of their kids to save money) features a giant GREEN phallic arrow. Proof of where their thinking power comes from!
An instant coffee drinking, old car driving, extreme liberal, living on $10,000, formerly living in Spectors liberal Phila., I recognized at least 15 years ago, the power grab going on by these vile, greedy. self serving, conservatives.......
If PA votes in a Democratic Senator, fine, but I have respect for Sen, Spector, and don't think he is self serving; after all he did show up for Senate proceedings while in therapy for cancer. Get some perspective people!

[AlaninElkGrove]

Arlen Spectre - too liberal for the Republicans conservatives, too conservative for open-minded liberals. In baseball terms - caught off base too far to get back to first, but too far away to make it to second,

In other words - uh oh!!

[Jezreel]

This is bad news. I hope that between Sen. Reid and the Labor Unions there will ultimately be enough support for the Bill's passage.

[hmmmmm]

to all the trolls against EFCA.

lets just ban the unions altogether, right? I mean, what was wrong with 65 hr work weeks for 12 year olds paid in pennies in unsafe factories? Im sure we can trust America's Corporate CEO's to insure highwages, safe work enviornment, and reasonable compensation for missed work due to illness without those pesky Unions.

If you succeed may it be you and yours who find themselves needing a voice to your bosses when they decide to mistreat you.

[SelenicMagick]

I wouldn't advocate getting rid of them completely.

On the other hand... I WOULD advocate barring them from making political donations of ANY kind and I WOULD advocate that they be REQUIRED to be NON-profit.

[IndieBlue]

OK, as long as we apply the same rules to corporations and their management.

[Ramirez]

I think that is what's called a "straw man" argument.

[joebloe]

I don't see how that is a straw-man. Those are all things that unions and their members have fought for for all workers, whether they belong to a union or not.

Thanks to unions we have a 40 hour work week, child labor laws, safety in the workplace, and health benefits for Americans.

Do you believe companies would have given us those things of their own free will?

Read "A Day in the Life of Joe Republican"
http://www.theseminal.com/2008/10/30/a-day-in-the-life-of-joe-republican/

[drewdawgsea]

Why is labor not out there campaigning and creating flyers and passing them out to the people? We have a unique opportunity to get people to see the benefits of unions and organizing but we have to move soon. I think the flyers should say something like:

AIG executives get millions of dollars in bonuses because their CONTRACT required it. How much of a bonus did you get this year because of your contract? What? You don't have a contract with your employer? Well maybe you should. Contact your congressman and tell them to support EFCA.

OR

If CONTRACTS that provide big bonuses are good enough for executives of big corporations like AIG, then why are these same executives so opposed to contracts for the employees that work under them? Contact your congressman and tell them to support EFCA.

[all74]

Here here!

I am just SO amazed at how blind some people, aka repug supporters, are. Can't people see that they are being enslaved? Unions are GOOD, people. CEOs are not your fairy godparents... more like the weird relative who will try to abuse you if you're alone with them for two seconds.

And, at the same time that I hear the nutjobs go off on unions, I also hear them bemoan all the jobs that will go up here to Canada if you all don't become more protectionistic... but we are MUCH more pro-union up here.

[ContrarianLibertarian]

"but we are MUCH more pro-union up here."

Then I imagine that isn't where the jobs would go, ceteris paribus.

Most of the jobs we're talking about here are finding their ways to low labor cost places. That's hardly any secret. And, really, as Austan Goolsbee pointed out, some 80% of job displacement comes not from outsourcing, but from technological advancement....which makes sense.

Everybody is always looking for ways to get more for less. It's not just unions (to those who have charged that). It's human nature.

[Ramirez]

How does labor campaign in favor of removing the right to a secret ballot in determining representation? It's better for the unions if the public really doesn't understand what this bill does.

[Clayton139]

Arlen Specter was not for Embryonic Stem cell research until he got Cancer !
Of course NOW he has been for it since then !

He is a Hypocrite, and like all GOP-Republicans with NO plan to show for !

[LAcharlie1]

The democrats are not afraid of a secret ballot for union representational elections, but they are opposed to the undemocratic and archaic rule of requiring 50%+1 of all employees to vote in favor before the NMB will sanction the election. Not voting is currently counted as a NO vote. There is no other election like this in the world. Make it a simple majority and EFCA would not be necessary. And, exactly would passage of EFCA 'force' employees into a union of their peers?

Come on pro management and republicans, get your facts straight before you start mouthing nonsense.

[Ramirez]

You are wrong. Not voting is not counted as a "no" vote.

The union only needs 50% +1 of all voting workers. If only 20 workers show up for the vote and 11 of them vote "yes" then the union is in. These rules are similar to any other election held in our nation.

[SelenicMagick]

Personally... and just as a "for what it's worth"

I honestly believe that BOTH management and the union should put their plans on the table OPENLY and that there be a vote within 24 hours. If the majority of the employees say that they want a union then fine.

On the other hand... I also think that if the employers should NOT be allowed to use card check to get rid of the union.

[ContrarianLibertarian]

I certainly agree with that. The secret ballot is always a good thing -- and never a bad thing.

It sounds to me like we should be amending the law to simply require secret ballot votes in both circumstances. Employers can hardly argue that the secret ballot is a bad thing for certification votes...but not a bad thing for decertification.

Honestly, I can't understand why anybody would be opposed to having a secret ballot in any circumstance like this.

[peaches49]

God forbid the workers should have some clout to be able to stand up for their rights!
I say -let the Republicans filibuster . Have them stand up and try and defend their airball ideas.

[southsiderosie]

I don't think this bill is as great as the unions seem to think it is, but the current NLRB ballot process is a joke. Employers challenge the voter lists for years, and challenge the results in court for another few years. Workers who support the union are often harassed and fired and, their cases are tied up in administrative hearings for years.

As to being "afraid of the secret ballot" as one commenter claimed, uh, it isn't much of a secret - employers know who votes, so a lot of workers just don't vote at all. Because the union question is decided with a simple majority of who shows up, the ballot system may not necessarily be representative of how workers feel about the union, pro or against. In this sense, the card check process is actually more representative of what the entire workforce wants, because 60% of ALL employees have to agree to it.

[kismet96738]

Yes. Thank you. I wish everyone would read your post.

We could do without EFCA if employers were regulated in terms of having union-busting consultants and abusing the electoral process. But they argued against the first on free-speech grounds and are never prosecuted on the second. EFCA isn't perfect by any stretch, but it's the best chance right now...

[ContrarianLibertarian]

You're telling me that businesses shouldn't be able to hire consultants to keep unions out of their shops?

Obviously, most businesses would rather not have a unionized workforce. And I can hardly blame them. There's absolutely no justification for any law which would obstruct their ability to contract with somebody on how to avoid it.

There are union-busting actions that are, and should be, illegal. But that doesn't mean that anything done in the interest of resisting a union should be illegal. Heck, that could include boosting pay packages or benefits....who knows?

None of this, anyway, is justification for doing away with an employer's right to require a secret ballot tally.

[SelenicMagick]

60% of ALL employees have to agree to it.

Ummmmmmmmmm... no... 50% +1 have to with the card check.

[mamacat]

This is yet another example of a Republican politician trading support in the primary for a lack of support in the general election. By moving further toward the right-wing of the party, and by abandoning support for the middle class, he is hurting his chances of being re-elected.