Democratic Senators: Mess With EFCA, Face A Primary

If you believe that a society cannot be truly democratic without a strong labor movement, and if you believe that the only way to build a fair economy is by making sure people can belong to unions, then, this is where a line must be drawn: Democratic Senators who block or undercut the Employee Free Choice Act should face well-funded primary challenges.

Today, Tom Harkin (D-IA), a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and George Miller (D-CA), the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, will announce that they are introducing EFCA. There is no doubt that EFCA will pass the Congress and reach the president's desk. The question, in my mind, is: what will the bill say? Will it bear any resemblance to the version Miller and Harkin are introducing? Or will it be watered down? And that's where the primary threat comes in (by the way, I will be on CNBC today at 11:30 Eastern time to discuss EFCA)

First, a bit about my view of the state of play. The math has always been pretty simple: EFCA will easily pass the House. The fight will be to get to 60 votes in the Senate. I've always suspected the conventional thinking on this was off--conventional, meaning, once Al Franken is seated, bringing the Democratic Senate caucus to 59, it would be easy to recruit one more Republican, more than likely, Arlen Specter, to support EFCA.

The problem is that there are a handful of Democratic Senators who are, at best, weak on labor, and, at best, just outright shills for corporate interests in the Congress. Here is my list: Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln; it's not clear to me what the replacement Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet will do on the bill, nor do I entirely trust Bill Nelson or Mark Pryor (on Pryor, maybe it's a family thing: his father was one of two Democratic Senators who would not vote in the 1990s to break a filibuster on the legislation that would have banned striker replacements, dooming the bill and giving corporations even more power to intimidate workers). That's seven Senators who, in my opinion, you cannot count as passionate champions of EFCA.

Here is what should concern us. I doubt any Democratic Senator will say "I oppose EFCA". What you will hear is something along the lines, "I think unions are good but there needs to be a balance between the interests of workers and business and the following amendment makes sure there is a balance..." and, not publicly, "thank you, Chamber of Commerce, you can now write out the PAC check for my next campaign..."

The kinds of bad amendments we could easily see come in three flavors:

1. An amendment that eliminates the "card check" provision. This has been the focus of the p.r. war--the provision that allows a majority of workers to sign cards that, when verified, constitute authorization to form a union. This is pretty simple. The intense brutalization of workers who try to form a union--from threats to actual firings--is well-documented and is a central reason for the decline of labor. The legislation allows workers to choose either "card check" or the more traditional election format. The key: it's up to the workers, not the corporation.

Along comes, say, Ben Nelson (who is not an EFCA co-sponsor), with an amendment to eliminate "card check". That's going to be a key moment: who sticks with the "card check" provision and who, to use a familiar phrase, cuts and runs?

2. An amendment that eviscerates the push to reach a contract once a union is formed. Workers may vote for a union but you think that means companies, then, rush to make a deal? Heck no--companies often drag out negotiations, sometimes for years, frustrating workers who, then, become easy targets for anti-union campaigns aimed at voting out the union.

EFCA now says: if you can't reach a first contract within 90 days, either party can request mediation by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). If that doesn't push the parties after 30 days, everyone moves to binding arbitration, though the time limits can be extended by mutual agreement. So along comes, say, Mary Landrieu, with an amendment that extends that time to one year or even eliminates binding arbitration--returning more power to a corporation to repress workers' interests.

3. EFCA increases the financial penalties against companies that break the law during organizing and contract campaigns. Along comes, say, Blanche Lincoln, with an amendment that keeps the penalties low. I have to say, in my opinion, this is not the biggest point: until the penalties actually include jail time, none of this really matters to the corporate leaders because all the financial hits are just a cost-of-doing business that they just deduct from the bottom line. But, still, it's a place where a handful of Democrats could cut down EFCA's effect.

Now, if you think this is all just fanciful navel-gazing (which, actually, is a lot of fun, truth be told), just yesterday there was this, from Politico:

As Big Labor and Big Business gird for a free-for-all on the Employee Free Choice Act, the bill's fate increasingly hinges on Sens. Blanche L. Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) -- two wavering moderates who would love to dodge the controversy.
...
Despite labor's pressure for a fast, rip-off-the-Band-Aid vote, Lincoln and Landrieu are not inclined to move quickly. That could hang up the measure for months, perhaps pushing it into the midterm election year of 2010, according to people on both sides.
....
"I'm not sure that we have the votes," Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
.......
Lincoln, for one, has told confidants she's in no rush -- and doesn't want to move on EFCA until after the epic battle over reform.

"Right now, my No. 1 priority is strengthening our economy and putting 90,000 jobless Arkansans back to work," Lincoln wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO. "I'll consider legislation to change union organizing rules sometime after it's introduced in the Senate and before it's brought to a vote."
....

"Sen. Landrieu is carefully reviewing the issue. She understands that it is a heated debate and wants to make an informed decision," said a Landrieu spokeswoman, adding that her boss's calendar brimmed with card check meetings this week. "Part of that process is actively meeting with interested groups on both sides. Sen. Landrieu is also reviewing the proposed bill."

That last part is critical: Landrieu reviewing the proposed bill? She is listed as a CO-SPONSOR of the bill. And that's part of the calculation: when the Democratic Senate caucus was much smaller before the last cycle, a few senators like Landrieu saw no harm in listing themselves as a co-sponsor under the theory that they could still get labor's campaign money and support, without having to vote on the bill because it had no chance of even coming up for a final passage vote.

Ok, so, now about the primary. I guess I'd start by saying that I think primaries are very good things to have--primaries are the place that a party defines its soul and direction. So, if need be, let's have the debate in a primary over these issues:

The only way for our country to recover from a collapse in wages over the past three decades is to have a strong labor movement. By every measure, union workers do better than non-union workers. Sen X, you just voted to cripple legislation that would have restored a decent standard of living for working Americans. Why do you deserve another term?

Sen. X, we have seen the greatest divide between rich and poor in generations. You voted to cripple legislation that would have brought America back to be a more fair society for all your constituents. Why do you deserve another term?

Sen. X, you call yourself a "loyal Democrat". Yet, you undermined the very legislation that would have built one of the party's key constituencies--working people who belong to unions who vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party's candidates. Why should the party put you back in office when you undercut its power?

I'd also say that if Harry Reid does not make EFCA a priority--meaning, demanding that the caucus be unified and fight as one--it might not hurt to field a primary challenge to him.

So, let the waverers beware: support EFCA, fight for it and defend it... or face the prospect of cashing in that chit for a job as a corporate lobbyist.

Comments

[laurenc]

I have read that Jim Webb and Jon Tester "netroots darlings" have not committed to EFCA.

As someone who contributed to their campaigns, I am very concerned.

Jim and Jon, say that you care about workingclass people!!
Say that you don't want more poverty and four job famlies!!

I am waiting and readers if you agree, please contact them as well.

[Jim Street]

You say about the card check "The key: it's up to the workers, not the corporatio­n."

But who really decides if there will be a secret ballot election under EFCA? The workers? No, it will be up the local union president who decides for them.

So will unions be likely to go with a secret ballot election? Not likely. Remember, the union officials are not always in it for the rank and file. They have high salaries to pay for the union officials. Check out the Teamsters for example: http://tdu.org/2008salaryreport

Let's face the facts here - big unions are big businesses in their own right. More members = more $$$. That's the bottom line.

Why should union supporters be able to coerce the workers into joining, by merely signing a card, with any legal repercussions?

Why can't a company be given a chance to defend themselves against any potential lies the union is saying, instead of being blindsided by 50% +1 cards signed?

Why can't the employee be given a truly "free choice" by ensuring the privacy that a secret ballot election gives?

This is why the AFL CIO and other big labor groups spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the 2008 elections. They need the card check provision to get more money.

Big Labor = Big business. They need the dues of the rank and file.

[GrandpaLeaman]

Oh my...$150,­000.00 per year!!! You call that a lot? That doesn't even come close to what corporate CEO's make in compensation in one year. Just looking at four CEO's who work for companies starting with "A". Julian R. Geiger, CEO of Aeropostale Inc., made over $9,000,000­.00 in compensation in 2007. Ronald A. Williams, CEO of Aetna Inc. made over $23,000,00­0.00 in compensation in 2007. Zev Weiss, CEO of American Greetings Corporation, made over $2,800,000­.00 in compensation in 2008. August A. Busch, CEO of Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc., made over $14,000,00­0.00 in compensation in 2007. All of these numbers were compensation amounts reported to the SEC. Now tell me who has big money to throw around! My fear is not that labor unions will destroy free enterprise (they have been around for nearly 100 years in the US and this has yet to happen), but that the corporations will continue to buy off our elected officials until we are no longer a democracy.

[Jim Street]

I wasn't calling the Teamsters making more than $150k "a lot" of money, I was merely pointing out that the members of the "Teamsters for a Democratic Union" publish this information every year for their own members to see.

So yeah, I guess to the Teamsters members, $150,000.0­0 per year is indeed "a lot".

My fear is that Big Labor will continue to punish the workers who bust their butts every damn day, paying dues; while officials continue to negotiate more concessions in their contracts. All the while, senior union officials are giving themselves raises. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

Unions were established to protect the rights of the workers, but are they? Seems like Big Labor wants EFCA to pass so they can increase the money in their coffers, to ensure they can pay the pensions coming due as the boomers begin to retire. There was a time and place for unions, without question. But labor law has changed dramatically since the early days of unions, protecting the rights of workers against discrimination, health and safety, protected medical leave, etc.

Big Labor appears to be pushing EFCA (with hundreds of millions of dollars in support) not for the workers rights, but to increase dues.

[IsaacKuo]

Thank you for reporting this. I will be mailing a letter to Senator Landrieu that if she wants my vote the next time, she'd better get with the program.

[Steve Maritas]

Employee Free Choice Act: Rally Planned at the Headquarters of The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace in Washington D.C. This Week

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 10, 2009

The formal introduction of The Employee Free Choice Act in Congress Today the "End of Civilization will begin to disappear" for Corporate Front Groups such as The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace.

This week a Coalition of some of the Biggest and Largest Labor Unions, Religious Groups and Civic Groups are Planning a Massive Rally in Support of the Employee Free Choice Act at the Headquarters of The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace a Corporate Front Group made up of over 500 members who are opposing the Employee Free Choice Act.


Employee Free Choice Act: Rally Planned at the Headquarters of The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace in Washington D.C. This Week

The Time and Date of the Rally will be Announced Shortly.

Coalition for a Democratic Workplace
901 7th Street NW, 2nd Floor
Washington, DC 20001(202) 580-7289


For More Information on EFCA please visit our websites and blog


www.TheTru­thAboutEFC­A.Org

http://www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org

http://efcanow.blogspot.com/


Tags: Employee Free Choice Act, Free Choice Act, EFCA, Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, My Private Ballot,Chamber of Commerce,Navigators Global,Labor Union, Unions, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Employee Freedom Action Committee, Alliance For Worker AFW, Americans For Job Security, Secret Ballot, Card Check, SEIU. AFL-CIO, USW, Change to Win, UAW Teamsters,

[Oldchef]

A few years ago, I was hired by an out-of-state management company as a local face to be Executive Chef at a hotel facing a union election. Part of my job was to meet with my staff to push the idea that the union was unecessary, and that disputes could be amicably settled with staff conferences with management (management made me believe this). Besides meetings with department heads, there were also meetings of the entire staff with management lecturing and promising they would listen to staff concerns and address them. After the election, with the union defeated, all those who had agitated for the union were dismissed, staff complaints not addressed as promised, and those who did complain were targeted for dismissal, with trumped up "incident reports", and after I took some complaints to the owner of the property, I was let go when my 1 year contract expired. The management company eventually bankrupted the hotel and the banks took it over. There's why they like the "secret ballot".

[Gregory McGillivary]

Mr. Tasini is right. This is not a time for the Democratic senators to get weak-kneed about EFCA. Anti-labor policies and union busting companies and their law firms have made it nearly impossible to unionize in the private sector by working the system, firing labor leaders and destroying the process. We have seen what happens to this country when conservative policies destroy the middle class. The rest of the western world provides for unionization in conditions more supportive of unions than EFCA. Keep up the heat on these wafflers.