Specter: I'll Vote No on Employee Free Choice Act
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) just dealt a big blow to the labor movement by announcing publicly that he would support a GOP filibuster of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), unions' No. 1 priority for this year and a subject of intense lobbying on both sides of the aisle.
"My vote on this bill is very difficult for many reasons," Specter said in a Senate floor speech, minutes after the news was broken by the Washington Independent. "It is very hard to disappoint many friends ... who are urging me to vote their way."
But Specter affirmed that he would join his fellow Republicans to block cloture on EFCA, effectively dooming the union-organizing bill's chances of becoming law in its current form. The Pennsylvania senator, who faces a tough re-election challenge from the right, was the only GOPer to support breaking his party's filibuster on EFCA when it last came up for a vote two years ago.
Between Specter's opposition -- he asserted today that his 2007 vote on EFCA did not equate to "supporting the bill on the merits" -- and the stated uncertainty of several centrist Democratic senators, it looks like the labor-backed bill is mired in the Washington mud for now. A "compromise" proposal floated by three CEOs and promoted by erstwhile Obama critic Lanny Davis has met with a sound rejection from Democratic leaders.
Late Update: The response from K Street is unsurprisingly warm ... Specter probably doesn't have to worry about countering a labor-union endorsement of his Democratic opponent. From National Association of Manufacturers President John Engler:
I am very pleased that Senator Arlen Specter has decided to vote against cloture on the EFCA. EFCA is a flawed piece of legislation that will destroy jobs and prolong the current economic recession. Manufacturers stand behind Senator Specter's decision to vote against EFCA and appreciate his decision to put working men and women, the economy and the nation first.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
He's a traitor. And a flip-flopper. And he deserves what's coming to him in 2010.
How Specter ever got a reputation as a moderate is beyond me. Sure he makes periodic noises, but when push comes to shove he always falls in line behind his fellow Repugnuts.
March 24, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's similar to George the Chicken-hearted Voinovich.
He likes to talk a good game, but when it's all on the line, he cowers into just another Repub hack.
March 24, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just one more reason why I hope that the good citizens of PA send this guy packing in 2010. He is hardly the worst republican in the senate, but that does not mean that he is the best person to fill this seat.
March 24, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No need to worry about us good Dems of PA, it's the PA GOP that's going to dump Specter before he even makes it to the general. And they'll run a Santorum-like winger. Which means another Dem seat for PA. Which means EFCA in 2011.
PEACE
March 24, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds good to me. From your lips to God's own ears.
March 24, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So when do the Democrats start picking a challenger?
March 24, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are a few lining up already. Alyson Schwartz, Patrick Murphy, and others.
I'll switch to Republican just for the primary and cast a vote for Pat Toomey if I have to.
March 24, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too!
March 24, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point a Hostess Twinkie would be a more compelling candidate, not to mention more consistent.
March 24, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
runup,
Patrick Murphy is my Congressman, I doubt he or Schwartz have the name recognition statewide to beat Specter. I also think we need someone from western Pa as both Casey and Specter are from the east.
How about ex-Steeler Franco Harris, he's a Dem activist? :-)
March 25, 2009 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
His first of many votes along party lines - he's essentially sold his vote the next two years in order to be re-elected in 2010.
I have no doubt that a backroom deal has been struck that will see Toomey decide to "spend more time with his family" come the height of primary season.
The Geithner/AIG attack doesn't exist in a vacuum. The GOP knows it's scoring points, it has Geithner being bloodied on television with all of the congressional grandstanding for the last week+, now it's looking to score a body blow on Obama by defeating a big policy initiative.
March 24, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not terribly surprising. It's surprising only in the context of his previous vote.
But you know what?
I'm disappointed with Spector and more disappointed with EFCA backers who to this day cannot articulate why it's an important improvement without getting tangled up in the card check/secret ballot web.
I'm not even sure how EFCA changes existing labor law, and I've spent some time trying to read through the wording to understand what it actually is giving workers. I thought I had a good grasp on it until another reader offered up an entirely different interpretation of the legislation.
What gives?
March 24, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree the response to the anti-EFCA proponents is typically rather cumbersome. However, when the rightwing and corporate America claim it takes away the "secret ballot", the best response is that is a lie it does not take away the secret ballot.
What the EFCA does is two things; level the playing field by allowing the workers, not the employers, to decide if they want a union and how they would get one--either card check or secret ballot.
Secondly, it guarantees arbitration if a contract cannot be reached in a certain timeframe.
Typically, under the current system, if you are lucky enough to get a union after the Company gets to harass and intimidate you for 6-12 weeks once a "secret ballot" election is determined, the Company will not bargain in good faith. This is a strategy just to wear down the workers who will get fed up and then give up on being union.
Also, it makes me sick for John Engler to claim this is a "decision to put working men and women, the economy and the nation first."
By all means, the higher concentration of unions in this country, the better it is for working men and women, the economy and the nation. Talk about Orwellian.
March 24, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
the best response is that is a lie it does not take away the secret ballot.
This sounds like a good response to me, but it is not an argument the EFCA backers are making that I can see. What the heck are they doing?
March 24, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
EFCA lets workers decide how to determine whether they are represented by a union.
Today, management makes that decision. Majority card sign-up can happen but management has to agree to it.
Under EFCA, workers make this decision. If 30 percent or more of the workers want an election, they have an election.
Under either process -- majority sign-up or an election -- it's still majority rule. Fifty percent plus one of the workers have to choose union representation.
EFCA makes two other big changes. 1) It provides for mediation and, ultimately, for binding arbitration if a newly-formed union and management cannot agree on a first contract within a specified period of time. This is needed because today 44 percent of newly-formed unions never get a contract.
2) It toughens penalties for labor law violations so that management can no longer treat trampling all over the legal rights of their workers as a minor cost of doing business.
Does that help?
March 24, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the other changes--thanks to both you, and gdunn for your comments. But I'm still stuck on a more basic issue.
So, let's see if I understand the change to union determination rules. My interpretation of existing rules: no matter what proportion of workers indicate, via card check, that they are in favor of union representation, management can ignore that and insist that the issue of union representation be decided by secret ballot. So even if 100% of the workers all say "Yes to union representation!" via cardcheck, management can still say "Until we have a secret ballot election, we're ignoring those results ".
Now? Secret ballot elections to determine the issue of union representation will be held if at least 30% of workers indicate, via card check, that that's what they want.
If 50% + 1 of workers indicate, via card check, that they're in favor of deciding the issue of union representation via card check then another card check election will be held? Or is is that once 50%+1 decide via card check that they're in favor of union representation the issue is done with, and the *only* thing left is to draft the contract?
I apologize for being dim at this point. But there's two issues that I'm confusing, I believe. 1. The issue about how to decide whether to have union representation and 2. What constitutes results in favor of union representation.
March 24, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, now you've got me confused. So either we're both dim or we're not. Anyway, my understanding is you've got current law right. And under EFCA, if 50 percent plus one of the workers sign union authorization cards and fewer than 30 percent of the workers request an election, the union is certified as the bargaining unit, and management must recognize it and start negotiating a contract.
If 50 percent plus one of the workers sign union authorization cards but 30 percent or more request an election, then an election will be held just like it is today, though perhaps (I must admit ignorance on this part of the bill's provision) under rules that are more fair and balanced.
The point being that both today and under EFCA, there are two different ways workers can organize. Today, management chooses the way they can organize and under EFCA, workers will make that choice.
March 24, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I was inadvertently introducing another layer of confusion into this. But I get it now.
Labor: respecting the secret ballot and reforming the election process.
Instead of: UNIONS ARE DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY AND SECRETBALLOTSECRETBALLOTSECRETBALLOT!!!@#!#!
Thanks, moose, for the discussion.
March 24, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but I see EFCA as a loophole-closer to return U.S. Labor Law to its original intent 70 years ago, which was to help workers form a union and benefit from collective bargaining.
Over the years, especially since Reagan gutted the NLRB, lax enforcement by the feds and aggressive abuse by employers has created a defacto legal and regulatory regime which takes all power away from the workers. It's virtually impossible for workers to form a union today unless the employer actually wants the union.
Even more simply, EFCA takes away the employer's veto power (which the employer STOLE) and restores the right to collective bargaining.
March 24, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right now, the process works as described by 29 U.S.C. 159. Section (a) defines a certain sort of government-recognized employee bargaining representative, i.e., a union. Section (a) (3) defines the process by which the government comes to recognize such a representative. It is somewhat convoluted. A "substantial" number of employees must sign a petition with the National Labor Relations Board, or the employer can submit a petition directly. When the petition is filed, the NLRB holds a hearing. At the hearing, they schedule an election.
If you look at the text of the Employee Free Choice Act, from thomas.loc.gov [I suggest just looking it up, it's really short, but linking into Thomas is tricky], it adds a new section to 29 U.S.C. 159 that says:
The 30% secret ballot rule comes from a later section of 29 U.S.C. 159, which would stand under EFCA and which says:
So in summary, if EFCA passes, the rules will be: - If a "substantial" but less than 50% number of employees sign a petition to designate a union, the NCLB calls an election to decide whether this happens. - If 50% of employees sign authorizations to designate a union, the NCLB declares the union designated. - If after this happens 30% of employees file a counterpetition, the NCLB will call an election to decide whether to rescind that designation.
March 24, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
If 50% + 1 of workers indicate, via card check, that they're in favor of deciding the issue of union representation via card check then another card check election will be held? Or is is that once 50%+1 decide via card check that they're in favor of union representation the issue is done with, and the *only* thing left is to draft the contract?
No card check election under the proposed bill. If there are cards from 50% plus 1 of workers in favor of a union, then the company must recognize the union and negotiate with the union over a contract (unless the company gets 30% of the workers to sign cards requesting a secret ballot). And if negotiations fail, then a federal arbitrator can impose a two year contract.
March 24, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
FWIW, my local prog talk station carries CNN news headlines at the top of the hour. In their "reporting" today the Specter will vote against EFCA (or rather, vote against cloture, yet another distinction CNN didn't bother to make), they also "reported" that EFCA would "eliminate the secret ballot."
That was it. In so many words.
When the major broadcast and cable media (and much of print media) are operated of, by, and for the corporations, the deck is pretty heavily stacked against the truth when it's the truth vs. the corporations.
March 25, 2009 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now see, I didn't know this, and I am a supporter and thought I had followed the issue reasonably, though not extremely, closely. I didn't realize that workers would have an option to choose secret ballot if they wanted, that it wouldn't require a majority to make that choice, only a sizeable minority, and I didn't realize that companies had an option to use card sign-up now. (Not that any of them would likely ever choose it.)
So yes, I'll have to agree that the backers are doing a very bad job of promoting this legislation. And I'm afraid it's probably too late to turn the perception around at this point. A crying shame.
Note to TPM technical: Blockquote appears to be broken. The only way I can get it to include two paragraphs without a huge gap between them is to insert the dot at the beginning of the blank line between them. Leaving a completely blank line causes blockquote to terminate after the first paragraph, even though that's not where the ending tags are.
March 24, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I think there is a pretty easy fix, we need to call out the anti-EFCA backers on their "secret ballot" lies.
Then promote the option of a majority sign-up (which card check is). Lastly, that it should be the workers option, not the management of the Company.
"Majority sign-up or secret ballot, let the workers, not the Company, decide." I don't know if that slogan is simple enough, but it gets the point across.
March 25, 2009 6:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the main way it changes current law. Curently , if the union gets 30% of workers to sign a card saying they want union representation, the company can either recognize the union or call for an election with secret ballot to see if the union gets a majority. In real life, the company always calls for an election. If the union wins, the company and union negotiate but if they can't reach an agreement, so be it.
Under the proposed law, if 50% of workers sign a card, then the company must recognize the union and start negotiations (unless the company gets 30% of the workers to sign a petition requesting a secret ballot). If the union and company can't agree on a contract after 90 days of negotiation, a federal arbitrator can hear the matter and impose a contract for the first two years.
March 24, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
Labor: respecting the secret ballot and reforming the election process.
Why aren't we hearing that, for god's sake?
March 24, 2009 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I agree. What's up?
March 24, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
14 different answers as to what EFCA will change is the reason there's not 1 coherent slogan.
March 24, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's an interesting statistic: In 2007, 311,000 workers joined unions. Of that number, only 70,000 gained membership through the current grossly unfair, management-stacked election process. The remainder won recognition through majority sign-up.
So under the current pathetic state of labor law, the unions with the most organizing success are those that convince management to accept majority sign-up. That means they're put at least as much effort into organizing management as they are into organizing workers. To my thinking, that's screwed up -- though obviously, it's a necessity in the environment that exists today.
It means unions conduct corporate campaigns aimed at bringing public embarrassment and shame on corporations to convince them that they'll pay a greater price for resisting the union than living with one. Or it means using their financial leverage through pension funds. Or it means cutting deals with management. Or it means putting disproportionate effort into organizing public employees since elected officials often want labor support in their campaigns and so are more receptive than private corporations.
Under EFCA, all the power flows back to the workers. They decide, and union organizers will once again be focused on them rather than cutting deals with management.
March 24, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in Pa.He can't be relied on for anything except to do whats best for himself.
The challenge is finding someone that can win against him in the more conservative parts of the state. That means name recognition.
right now its rumored that the odds on favorite
to run against him is Congressmen Joe Sestak
March 24, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in PA, too, in Murphy's district, but I'd heard that Sestak has taken himself out of consideration. Which is a shame.
Murphy is a good guy, but no name recognition.
PEACE
March 24, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, it's a pity that Sestak is not willing to run. I think Murphy would be stronger than Schwarz.
March 24, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in the 13th district so Schwartz is my Congressmen. Things have changed since Joe Hoeffel ran against Specter but I don't think any of them could win in the more conservative parts of the state.
March 24, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typical Spector. "Sorry, I've cast my one courageous vote for the year." Time to go, Arlen. Buh-bye.
March 24, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ole, Arlen! Behaving just like Georgia's Chambliss - always sitting on the fence to see which way the political winds blow - 'cept, Arlin's got way way more sense.
March 24, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice knowing you, Arlen (well, not really). You have NO possible path to re-election now. Don't let the door hit you, etc.
March 24, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do the Republicans really think a wingnut like Toomey can win a general election in PA? Would Toomey actually have a shot against whoever the Dems nominate?
If not, trying to primary out Specter amounts to cutting off their nose to spite their face. Specter may not be another Tom Coburn or Jim DeMint, but he still votes the party line most of the time.
March 24, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we now put to rest the pathetic pandering to this swine of a Republican about becoming a Democrat for God's sake?
Let him screw labor on this bill and then let's end his political career in the next election.
March 24, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's a cancer in the Senate. Can't wait to see him go, one way or the other.
March 24, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't NEED 60 votes to get things done in the Senate. You need 50 votes, the VP and a pair for Reid. Let us all mail Reid a pair. We have everything else.
March 24, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I used to say the same thing, about needing only 51 votes to pass a law in the senate, but that isn't true. You need 60 votes before the law can even be voted on in the senate, so in reality you need a 60% majority to pass anything.
The one exception is bills that approve spending in accordance with the previously passed budget. Those require only 51 votes. (The Budget Reconciliation Process). Don't ever forget that America is not a democracy and doesn't trust the majority to decide much of anything.
To make it even more disgusting, no matter how many votes you can get for a bill in the Senate, if the money men on Wall Street oppose it, the bill is dead in the water. Money rules here, not votes.
March 24, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
can we please change the senate rules? a democracy is supposed to be majority rule, not SUPER MAJORITY rule...
March 24, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, I do not know that I agree with this. Sometimes a democracy is supposed to be super majority rule. It is a good thing, for instance, that the constitution requires more than just a 50%+1 vote to be amended. The filibuster is often used to thwart progress, to be sure, but then it is also frequently used to thwart the reactionaries as well. I am just as leery of "nuclear options" when we are in the majority as I am when we are in the minority.
March 24, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Constitution identifies all the checks and balances that are needed. The House only needs 51%. The Senate only needs 51%. Then the President can choose to veto. At that point you need the super majority to override. Then, if that isn't good enough, the Supreme Court steps in on constitutionality. The 60% Senate Cloture vote is not identified in the Constitution, and is NOT needed to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
March 24, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let them filibuster this bill. And let the American people watch it 24/7. See how long that lasts.
March 24, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It is very hard to disappoint many friends ... who are urging me to vote their way."
That's okay Arlen. As long as you don't disappoint Rush and Grover. Lets see if they are there for you in 2010.
March 24, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a time and a word for everything, Arlen. The time has past for you and the word is Asshole supreme!
March 24, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's perfect proof that campaign contributions work against the interests of the nation.
March 24, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kiss Spectre goodbye. Come on Reid...why don't you ask the American voters if they want to see the filibuster rule removed now that it has been so heavily abused. It's ridiculous that the minority can hold the majority hostage. The spirit of the rule has been lost. It no longer is used for the purpose it was originally created.
It now is only used to obstruct everything the minority doesn't like. Get rid of the filibuster rule...the nation will love you for it...and remember, the media no longer expresses or represents the views of the American people.
March 24, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Arlen is finally doing the right thing, now that he realizes that a vote in support of EFCA is not just symbolic, because it could actually make the difference between passage and defeat.
The proponents of EFCA seem to believe that the only possible reason why more workers aren't unionized is because it's not easy enough for them to do so. Instead of realizing that, as US companies have faced increased competition from abroad, it makes increasingly less sense for workers to unionize. In a world with little to no foreign competition, workers can push for better compensation and better terms of employment without putting the company at risk of collapse and without having to withstand many job losses in exchange for those better terms. But once US companies face serious competition, it is in the workers' best interest to moderate their demands, because any increase in compensation would necessarily have to result in much larger job cuts (and a higher risk to the survival of the company). This is simple economics: the elasticity of labor demand (i.e.: how many jobs are lost from a given increase in labor costs) increases with the level of competition in the product market.
That is the real reason unionization rates in the private sector have been plummeting since the 1970s --well before Reagan became president, by the way. In other words: it's increased openness to trade that has resulted in the weakening of the unions, not government policy. And by the same token, no amount of government action is going to protect workers' jobs in industries where foreign competition is strong. Let's face it: unions became very strong in the 1950s and 60s only because, in the post-WW2 period, the US was in a unique position of strength, with a manufacturing industry that was largely intact and strong as ever, and most competitors busy rebuilding their countries. America and its workforce largely benefited from that, as well it should have. But those times are never coming back.
In sum: EFCA is not the answer to the decline in unionization rates. People do not unionize largely because we live in a much more competitive world now, where union demands tend to kill jobs and industries at much higher rates than decades ago, and people know it. Trying to reverse that artificially through legislation like EFCA is not going to help anyone in the long run --if anything, it's just going to make our firms even less competitive and will only result in more job losses down the line.
Instead of wasting so much time and energy to get EFCA passed, why not work harder to keep expanding what works, like the Earned Income Tax Credit, and put pressure on our elected officials to stop giving tax giveaways to companies and instead use those funds to pass state and local expansions of the EITC? That would put more money in workers' pockets without creating perverse work disincentive effects and without hampering the competitiveness of any US employer.
We'd better start refocusing our efforts now that it's pretty clear that EFCA is not going to get passed, at least not in its current form and not by this Congress.
March 24, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The EITC has problems too. In the absence of a strong minimum wage, it just ends up serving to subsidize low-wage employers
March 24, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The EITC is a much better policy than the minimum wage. It doesn't distort the market nearly as much, it doesn't raise costs to employers, and it simply represents a transfer of income from the average taxpayer to the lowest-paid workers in the economy, without increasing unemployment. You will not find many economists, liberal or not, who prefer the minimum wage over the EITC --and that includes economists who tend to believe that the minimum wage has very small effects on employment. Even they tend to prefer the EITC as a policy tool to aid the poor.
In any case, my major point stands regardless of what you think about the EITC: government policy towards unions was not the culprit in the decline of unionization rates over the past four decades or so, hence government policy is not the way to bring them back up.
March 24, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try this: As US companies have faced increased competition from abroad, it makes increasingly less sense for business owners to lavish so much of their company's profits in compensation, bonuses, and varied and sundry other rewards for themselves and upper management, instead of investing it back into their businesses. It doesn't seem to stop them, though.
Without the possibility of union representation, you get companies acting like Wal-Mart, giving employees just few enough hours that they aren't entitled to health benefits, for example. Have you tried getting health insurance on your own? It's none too cheap.
And, by the way, what kind of products are we getting from those jobs and facilities that have moved overseas? I wouldn't recommend buying food products from China, just for starters.
March 24, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
THANK YOU!
March 24, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter pittprof: "American workers are now part of the serf class. Get used to it. Forget about good jobs and a living wage. Learn how to live on handouts from the ruling class."
And to that demand for surrender, I say: "NUTS!"
March 24, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The proponents of EFCA seem to believe that the only possible reason why more workers aren't unionized is because it's not easy enough for them to do so."
This statement is so true. It's kind of weird to base your dissertation here on a premise which is true, but you assert is false. Being in numerous organizing drives in which most lost after more than 70% of the workers signed cards, the reason was "it's not easy enough" because Companies get to hold their employees hostage with threats, intimidation and coercion for 6-12 weeks prior to a "secret ballot" election.
Your summary is patently false, because an overwhelming number of Americans not only support the idea of unions, an overwhelming number of Americans would join a union tomorrow if it was easy enough to do.
http://www.aflcio.org/joinaunion/voiceatwork/efca/10keyfacts.cfm
March 25, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
One vote makes all the difference. The Obama campaign harnessed the power of small with their grassroots outreach and great fundraising success. And while we have a president who ran on not being a washington insider-the political reality is the Obama administration needs to recognize the power of the small but powerful group of 535 in congress and build support for his agenda. In a system where one senator can derail everything the White House needs to get their ducks in a row and campaign just as hard on Capitol Hill as they are around the rest of the country.
March 24, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=39dce122-fce9-5df9-bc36-a3d7dc60fa54
March 24, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The better way to expand labor’s clout in collective bargaining is through amendments to the NLRA rather than on eliminating the secret ballot
It's not being eliminated. Thanks, Arlen, for parroting anti-labor talking points.
The problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employees Free Choice legislation
It would be a horrible thing, wouldn't it, to try and provide more workers with the opportunity to gain bargaining power to protect their jobs?
If efforts are unsuccessful to give Labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the NLRA, then I would be willing to reconsider Employees’ Free Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy
By the time the economy returns to normalcy, Senator Spector, you're probably not going to be in office. Nice try.
March 24, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Empowering the unions does mean a greater risk of losing your job, yes. (Again, for those who did not take economics in college: if workers demand better compensation, that will force the firm to adjust by increasing prices --which it cannot do if it faces competition in the product market-- or by cutting down on the number of employees --relative to what the number of workers would have been in the absence of those demands for better compensation).
If you empower unions during an economic boom, you are merely causing a slowdown in job creation --but if you do it in the middle of a recession, you are exacerbating job losses.
March 24, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Explain how Costco can provide better benefits than Sam's Club, which is nearly identical to it in every other way (inventory, size, location, number of employees in each store). Shouldn't Sam's Club be running them out of business?
There is nothing more to your insistence that better compensation for workers leads to jobs going overseas than your stating it as if it were fact. And it's not.
March 24, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Costco is really offering a much better compensation package than Sam's Club for workers, but the two companies are absolutely identical in every respect other than benefits, then explain to me how Sam's Club can still be operating and filling their vacancies with no problem. Shouldn't Costco be leaving Sam's Club with no prospective employees at all? Of course, an alternative model is that they are not identical companies, therefore their jobs would not be identical even if they offered the same benefits. Maybe one is better managed, or maybe the turnover is different, or maybe the tasks required of the employees are different, or the shifts... Because if they were indeed identical, nobody would be working for Sam's Club for less than Costco offers. They'd all be lining up for jobs at Costco and Sam's Club would have to close or raise its compensation to competitive levels.
Of course better compensation for workers increases costs to the employer and results in fewer workers employed. Just like higher prices result in fewer units of a product sold. Demand curves are indeed downward-sloping.
I never said the lost jobs go overseas, though --you are confusing outsourcing of US jobs overseas with increased competition from foreign companies.
March 24, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brain turd. HAVE YOU READ THE ACT? The secret ballot is NOT ELIMINATED. Go educate yourself.
March 24, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much for majority rule. Or did I miss that clause in the Constitution which requires pro-union labor law reform bills to get 60 instead of 51 votes to pass?
March 24, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure what THIS means, but I suspect it's a big opening shot across the bow from one of America's biggest employers, this one helmed by the uber-conservative Fred Smith:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/mar/24/10-billion-threat-fedex-warns-lawmakers-over-union/
March 24, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we will have to wait for our supermajority(god willing) before this one gets passed.
March 24, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ain't gonna happen. I'll bet my house that the Dems lose seats in both the house and the Senate come 2010 and even more in 2012.
March 24, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed: EFCA is never going to pass. But the silver lining is this: EFCA not passing is actually a good thing. Perhaps too many on the left come from a blind support for all things union and are having trouble seeing this right now, but believe me: EFCA was never a good idea.
There are many worthwhile progressive policy goals on the agenda, though, so hopefully this setback will get progressives fired up about a number of other issues that are much more important and effective goals with no counterproductive side effects. Enacting ENDA and UAFA, anyone? Repealing DADT and DOMA, anyone? Campaign finance reform, anyone? Those are worthy goals that we can all get behind.
March 24, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter pittprof:
You're not arguing just about EFCA. You don't disagree with this particular legislation. You disagree with unions at all.
March 24, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unions have lost its raison-d'etre, yes. They may force better terms of employment for its members in the short term, but they don't (because they can't) do anything that benefits workers in the long run.
The burden of proof is on you: Why do you want to give unions more power? If you think that will help workers in the long run, you are sorely mistaken: the very reason why unions have been weakened since the early 1970s is because workers increasingly recognize that it is not in their best interest to keep making the same demands as in the past, when US companies were in a much stronger position and didn't have to worry as much about foreign competition.
Look, my point is this: Progressives and democratic voters are not at all united on union policy. They are probably much more united on health care reform, for example, so let's focus on that.
March 24, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like the playing field between management and workers to be a bit more level than it is now. I don't consider that giving unions "more power". I consider it returning the playing field to a more equitable state.
Workers don't have to leave unions because leaders are intransigent with respect to members' demands. Members can elect new leadership. The fact that there were abuses of leadership in the past does not erase the value of unions now.
As for your comment about unions only providing some sort of short term benefit? I don't consider protection from arbitrary management decisions to be a short term benefit, for one.
Finally, the idea of focusing only on those issues that unite "Democrats" and "progressives" is a dead-ender that will result in no action being taken.
March 24, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
By "short-term" I mean to say that a union may succeed in giving its members what they demand, but that erodes the competitiveness of the company and puts it, and all its workers, in a weaker position.
Let me give you an example: I know of a workplace where all the administrative staff are unionized. They have a gazillion sick leave and personal days that they use as if they were vacation days, with little to no advance warning --so it's a crapshoot whether or not someone's assigned support staff will be there on any given day. It's next to impossible to get most of them to lift a finger, because they feel their job is secure. Of course, the quality of the services they provide has not been particularly good, and these admin workers are typically not the ones who have to deal with the fallout from disgruntled and angry customers.
What is going to happen to these workers? Well, management is planning on letting them all retire and then replace only about a third of them, mostly with part-time workers, interns and workstudies that will not get the same benefits. The rest of the work will be done by the computers and online systems whose implementation the current workers have been fighting tooth and nail against.
Now, if the union had not been there, management would have been able to get rid of one or two of those employees and would have gotten a better level of effort from the remaining workers. So, the union ensured that in the short run the workers all kept their jobs with the same nice terms... but in the long run all of these jobs will be eliminated. Sad? Yes. Avoidable? Absolutely. --And thank goodness this happens in a sector where foreign competition is not a major concern, or else perhaps the company would have had to close or at least shrink substantially to withstand those high admin labor costs with such low admin labor productivity.
So, yes, I have a very skeptical view of what benefits unions can bring to a workplace --including workers, who in the long run will end up being worse off than if the union were not there. You know, it's no coincidence that Wal-Mart has become the largest private employer in the US and one of the most successful companies in the world. And I'm sure that, although its workers would probably prefer to get better terms and lots of fringe benefits, many of those jobs would simply not exist if Wal-Marts across the country had become unionized. Wal-Mart simply wouldn't exist as the largest private employer in the country if it had to deal with unions on a daily basis, and we'd probably have fewer people employed in this country as a result.
March 24, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and you're right, I'm with you on this: just because not all Democrats agree on a given issue is no reason to give up the fight.
On EFCA, you guys have tried again, and it looks like you've lost again. Since we have a disagreement on the merits of EFCA (and yes, on the merits of unions in the 21st century), then I am actually quite happy and you are understandably not. But hopefully we can all move on and together fight other battles that might be worth fighting too: like health care reform that achieves universal coverage, or repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, for example.
March 24, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
pittprof: People *live* in the short run.
Have you noticed that wages have not kept up with productivity over the past 30+ years, for all but the very tippy top of the income distribution in our country? Unions have a raison d'etre that is every bit as relevant now as it has ever been, if not more so.
If you oppose unions, what is the practical mechanism by which you believe workers will see their compensation generally rise and fall with productivity increases and declines? Do you think employers out of the kindness of their hearts will have a major change of heart on this?
What is your notion of just compensation?
March 24, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Just compensation"? Employers are not in the business of paying their workers what's "just", but what the market pays for that type of work. If they don't, they risk going out of business.
And while we're at it: since you feel so strongly about "just compensation", why don't you start tipping the cashiers at your local supermarket or the workers at your local fast-food store? No, you probably don't want their higher income to come out of your pocket neither in the form of higher prices nor in the form of tips. Nobody does.
A few posts above I suggested that one way for the government to supplement the income of low-wage workers is to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a much better policy tool than just about any other aimed at helping the poor. (That has been the consensus among public policy experts, economists policymakers since the mid 1990s).
March 24, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, as a generalization employers are in the business of paying the minimum they think they can get away with to their employees while remaining in business. You say employers pay "what the market will bear." Yes, but the laws, policies and institutions, or lack thereof--including whether free trade unions are permitted to operate--directly affect the structure of given markets, and determine whether we get a race to the bottom on wages and compensation, where the producers who can come closest to drawing blood from a stone by extracting the most in return for the least from their employees set the basic dynamic.
There has to be some balance and that requires regulation of labor markets and policy adjustments.
"The market", as currently constituted, permits corporate CEOs to arrange compensation packages for themselves that are wildly unrelated to their "market value" and company fortunes, and that are far in excess of the incentives necessary to recruit people willing to make the kinds of very real sacrifices entailed. As demonstrated repeatedly throughout our history.
EITC is terrific as far as it goes, but all it does is get people out of poverty. It doesn't speak to the fairness of wages and compensation for the vast majority of working people.
We don't expect people to tip 7-11 store employees. That's why we need policy adjustments in the form of unions, minimum wage legislation supplemented by EITC, living wage laws, and, yes, universal health care on the benefits side.
Not interested in further pursuing this exchange.
March 24, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and if the "short run" just means having a good-paying job with plenty of benefits today and for the rest of the year, only to see your company implement massive lay-offs or even go out of business next year or in five years, then don't we all prefer a less generous compensation today in exchange for our job to still be around next year? Or do we still care so much about the "short run" that we don't worry at all about next year or about five years from now?
March 24, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I forgot the most important progressive goal worth fighting for right now: universal health care!
March 24, 2009 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If ever there was a law that required a real filibuster, this is it. Please, Senator Reid, force the issue. Make them stand and read from the phone book if that's what it takes.
March 24, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So EFCA won't pass as written.
Can anyone speak to the advantages of writing a new bill that encompasses the compromises which Specter has said he might support, specifically the 'last best offer' addition to binding arbitration?
March 24, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, hostage to the Weasel.
March 24, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
In English, please?
March 24, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
My strudel's in your oven.
March 24, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see two scenarios.
Scenario One: The Club for Growth and it's candidate mysteriously get cold feet and Specter get's the Republican nomination unopposed. A lot of money floods his reelection campaign, not strangely from opponents of EFCA.
Scenario Two: There's no calling off wingnuts. Specter retires but gets high paying position with an EFCA opponent as do top members of his staff and maybe even his family.
Any wagers?
March 24, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spector has always been a spineless weasel. He always dithers endlessly and at the very last moment, disappoints.
We REALLY need to punish Spector in 2010. It would send a message ot any other vulnerabler GOP clowns who want to buck the public and bow down to the rightwing.
March 24, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so short-sighted. Falling wages for working people is why the US economy had to rely upon a house of cards and monopoly money for fake "growth". Real wages have stagnated for a decade, thanks to unsolved health care crisis and management having too much leverage for its own good. These idiots don't realize that a failing middle class means no one to buy your products, especially now with the end of easy credit.
March 24, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Walter Mitty: if you are serious I'll take that bet. Somehow I doubt you have a house to bet though.
March 24, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It is very hard to disappoint many friends ... who are urging me to vote their way."
Interpretation: I have no beliefs or convictions of my own. I want to be popular with my friends. Therefore, I will vote against the rights of the workers.
What, are we still in high school?
March 24, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given Specter's multiple battles with cancer, I suppose he has personal courage, but as a public official, he's a wimp.
March 25, 2009 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
To paraphrase Emporer Palpatine: "Now (he) will pay for (his) lack of vision". Should come over to the good side Arlen. Enjoy your retirement.
March 25, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Specter says its hard to disappoint his "friends" and vote against EFCA. He no longer has friends, he has only paymasters (i.e., the Chamber of Commerce and the winner of the lifetime achievement "Falsie" award, Richard Berman)
Specter has effectively ended his career in the most disdainful, cynical and heart-breaking way. Where once he garnered respect as a "moderate" he has now demonstrated he has no conscience, no guts, and no future. He will be remembered as a coward and sell-out. Sad, but well-deserved.
I for one, am committing my time (and resources) to ensuring that he is out of office in 2010. The campaign starts now.
March 25, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all without the passage of this EFCA bill most of you would go back to the time when your bosses would tell when, if and what hours you would have to work (overtime without pay) and no benefits. Without the union you would not have all of the benefits that you now have. I live in a "right to work" state and the employee has no say as to the hours or benefits that they would receive. The pay at times would be much lower and without benefits. There would be no retirement unless you were in a 401K plan. Look what is happening now with the stock market. The 401K plans that were put aside for the future have lost most of the funds in them. You cannot look to the future thinking that you have a retirement 401K to take care of you. Arlan Specter is showing his true colors just thinking of himself and his future. He doesn't care about his constituents in his state or the rest of the workers that are trying to make a living and take care of their future. After all the rest of the GOP congressmen and senators have their health and retirement benefits. They don't have to worry about the future.
March 25, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink