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

advertisement

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

[Browmbomber2]

Have you ever wondered why GM is going broke. Could it be that the average worker making ten dollars an hour cannot afford a vehicle that costs thirty dollars an hour to make. If the ten dollar an hour person were in a union, then maybe he would be making thirty dollars an hour and could afford it, but on the other hand that would boost sales and make a big profit, which would encourage the auto worker to demand and probably get 60 dollars an hour, making it impossible for the 30 dollar an hour worker to buy it again. Unions have pretty much priced themselves out of a job. There is no easy answer, that is the nature of capitalism and greed.

[tomasedison]

the median family income in 2008 was actually a few dollars lower than their median income in 2000. eight years of stagnant wages help nobody but they do lower the standard of living in this country especially when inflation creeps along at 2% year after year.

[Ramirez]

It wasn't the hourly wage that sunk the auto companies; it was the benefit package.

[peacekitten]

of the executive suite. all the bailout money general motors received went to its banking division.

they have no business being in the banking industry in the first place.

[citizensrus]

If we had universal health insurance.­..we could eliminate the some of the cost of labor.

[joebloe]

You have obviously never been part of a union. We are quite mindful of the costs to management and what it takes to make a profit. If a company can't make money, then how can we expect to make money as well? Your utter ignorance of market forces is astounding.

As a union member I have taken pay cuts in order to keep our contractors competitive. I don't see financial workers doing the same.

[IndieBlue]

Could it be that throughout the 80's and 90's, while foreign competitors were perfecting smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, GM (and Ford) continued to design and produce large, gas-gussling vehicles, with comparatively bad safety ratings; so that when the new century rolled around and people began to realize "Oh, sh*t, we might run out of oil someday" they moved en masse to Toyota, Honda and Hyundai?

When someone who has only driven American cars his whole life buys a brand new Ford Contour and decides to get rid of it after 2 years because its already had 13 recalls and the funky smell from the AC won't go away, and trades it in for the used Toyota Corolla that makes it another 90,000 miles, it makes that person wonder why the hell he should ever go back, except for a used pickup he dives on the weekends.

No, it couldn't be that. It must be those pesky unions.

[ContrarianLibertarian]

But GM sold about as many cars worldwide last year as Toyota did. Toyota booked a huge profit, GM booked a huge loss....wi­th nearly identical volume.

The problems you're talking about here would show up in sales figures. There's no question that GM, Ford, and Chrysler have all given up market share in the US to foreign competitors. But that doesn't explain why they consistently lose so much money.

Neither, really, do the compensation packages of current, employed workers. They lose money so consistently primarily because of their legacy labor costs (pension, healthcare, etc.) and all the myriad, arcane rules governing their labor force.

GM and Chrysler, anyway, are probably going to end up filing bankruptcy. Chrysler will almost certainly be liquidated. GM will almost certainly not and will reorganize and continue operating.

At that point, I think you'll see their finances improve dramatically -- because they'll still be moving a whole lot of automobiles and they'll get rid of that lead weight around their ankles.

That truly sucks for those people who are depending on that. But defined benefit plans of any kind are destined for failure, because they necessarily rely on present productivity to pay the benefits for yesterday's productivity.

So I guess taxpayers will have to figure out how much of the bill for those insolvent health and pension funds they'll want to bail out.

[citizensrus]

When Nixon instituted his wage and price controls..­.everythin­g continued to rise but wages. So much for wages being why the cost of living is so high.

[BethinIllinois]

Anyone remember the old International Ladies Garment Worker Union commercials? They have the catchy song, "Look for/the union label/When you are buying/a coat, dress or blouse.
Remember somewhere/our unions sewing/our wages going/to xxxx the xxxx -- and run the house."

There's more -- and it will stick in your head forever! But I do applaud the sentinment, even while I don't like this bill.

Youtube has at least two of the old commercials! It was fun to listen to it and shake your head at the cheezy production and the clothes! This one is from 1978: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNTpOnZqeUo

[petef59]

So what?
Did you ever see Ronald Reagan commercial from the 1950's--suckin' up corporate AMERICA.

[Moxo]

Between kising Rush Limbaugh's rear end and Norquist's rear end... do Republicans in Congress ever stand tall for the avergae American?

[citizensrus]

Never. And that's nothing against them. But it's foolish to see those whose interests are the mirror opposite of those Republicans represent spout Republican rhetoric. My God, I even hear Union members spout Rush. Gun owners who don't realize that their bread is on the table because of the Democratic party. What's wrong with these people.
Listen, the constitution provides the right to own guns. A Democrat will not take away that right. That is just scare mongering. But..a Republican can reduce you to living in the company house, being paid by company scrips and shopping at the company store. In other words indentured servitude.

[SelenicMagick]

A Democrat will ALWAYS infringe on the rights of gun owners. New gun control laws ALWAYS infringe on the rights of LEGAL gun ownership and it is Democrats who inevitably push gun control laws which do NOTHING to combat crime to start with since criminals don't follow the law.

[the964kid]

why is he bothering to run in 2010??

[HeevenSteven]

Specter delivers d3ath bl0w to his 2010 reelection.

[HeevenSteven]

Specter delivers death blow to his 2010 reelection bid.

[dumboldfarmer]

It all depends on how you view it. The elected officials in the Senate tend to act as though they are protected by a union, perhaps one called "the good ol' boys club". The House is very similar. And the people in management in the banking and insurance industries sure as heck act as though they are part of a select union the way they stick together and protect each other.

I have worked in, and managed in, union companies. They weren't so bad. Historically, some of the mpst prosperous times in this country were the times when unions were at their peak. It all depends on your view.

[Republicrats]

The choice we have is to be intimidated by union bosses or to be intimidated by employers, this act does not fix anything, it only tilts things back in favor of being intinidated by unions. Which is the better of the two evils? Not sure, but American workers get the shaft either way...

[peacekitten]

cite facts. give concrete proof.

[Republicrats]

Facts? Live a life, have some jobs, see what happens, experience it....

[peacekitten]

the right wing has nothing but L I E S and they know it.

EFCA will NOT take away a worker's right to privacy in any shape, form or fashion.

what it WILL do is ensure that EMPLOYERS cannot punish or interfere with those workers who DO choose to unionize.

that's why the right wing politicians and their owners are against it.

but the right wing really should support it, because it would give even pppprostitutes the right to form a labor union, and they could certainly use the bargaining power with their ppppimps, i mean, supporters.

[Republicrats]

Stop with the idealism, union boss pressure is not a great substitute for employer pressure, they both suck!

[peacekitten]

idealism? it has nothing to do with that. it has to do with what the bill ACTUALLY says.

i've asked you several times to cite the sources of your quotations, and you won't.

incidentally, i have been a union member for many years, and have yet to be pressured by a single union steward.

[Republicrats]

And another point of view:

After spending an astounding $61 million to elect Democrats in the 2008 elections, union bosses are getting their payback this week.

"Yesterday, so-called "Card Check" legislation was introduced in both the House and the Senate.

Card Check strips American workers of the right to a secret ballot and gives the federal government the right to impose labor contracts on workers.

The timing of this assault on the freedom of the American workplace could not be worse. A new study shows that for every three workers coerced into joining a union under Card Check, one job will be eliminated by besieged American businesses. "

[peacekitten]

cite your sources for the quotations you use or make a case on your own using some solid facts.

[IndieBlue]

His source was Newt Gingrich. Here it is...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?fc_c=1376762x2890738x32243217&id=31024

Yeah, Republicrats is that pathetic.

[joebloe]

Give up on saying EFCA takes away secret ballot elections.
Read the bill and tell me where it takes away secret ballot elections.
Even the Wall St Journal has given up on that falsehood.

Employers can get rid of a union with card check. Why can't we form one the same way?

[Halfwit]

How would EFCA effect right-to-work states?

[peacekitten]

in right to work states, workers still have the right to form a union even now. but in most of them, employers take it upon themselves to prohibit employee unions under threat of being ffired. they can punish those who want a union and get away with it, and they will interfere with the process given half a chance.

usually in right to work states, you will always find someone who will undercut the bids of union shops. but they do that by skimping on safety, wages, benefits, and even immunizing themselves against being sued for not providing proper safety measures on dangerous jobs. they figure they can always find people desperate enough to do them anyway, and they are usually right, because those people do not have the protection of a union.

[Feanor]

It's actually good news that the rumored deal with the unions is not gonna happen. Because, long term, this vote is not as important as getting Specter OUT of the Senate.

[Republicrats]

How many jobs lost?

"That means that an estimated 600,000 jobs could be lost due to Card Check in the first year alone - and that's on top of the over four million jobs already lost to the flagging economy.

Card Check is a job killer. Even Obama supporter Warren Buffet opposes it, saying "I think the secret ballot is pretty important in the country. I'm against card check." Watch him here.

But as far as Big Labor is concerned, a deal's a deal. Their goal is to get their allies in Washington to ram Card Check through Congress this week, before anyone notices that American workers and businesses are losing fundamental rights. "

[peacekitten]

cite your source, or hush up.

[IndieBlue]

Don't bother asking Repub. Here you go...
http://www.seiu.org/2009/03/about-that-new-study-funded-by-front-groups-that-oppose-free-choice.php

[ebanks84]

He's just scared, that's all. Ain't no telling what the repubs have said to him to scare him back into step.

[wacpatch]

Senator Specter!, Sorry to hear of your turncoat cowardice.­For your life-long understanding of the working class struggle for equity in our system, it must hurt deeply to change your heart for some bottom feeders promises. Perhaps your life will get a bit better...t­hat's cool. F*** the rest.