TPMDC
« Will Grassley Step Down From Senior Finance Position? | Home | TPMDC Morning Roundup »

Labor Joins Sestak In Pressuring Specter

Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) may be a lone critic of Sen. Arlen Specter among Pennsylvania Democrats and party leaders, but if he looks past his colleagues he'll find a natural (though perhaps convenient and temporary) friend in labor. For now, Sestak is sending warning shots at Specter, pressuring him to get with the program, and groups like AFL-CIO and SEIU are doing the exact same thing. Especially vis-a-vis issues like health care and employee free choice.

Officially, AFL-CIO say they "look forward to continuing an open and honest debate with Senator Specter about the issues that are important to Pennsylvania and America."

"Sen. Specter," they say, "has said all along that he recognizes the need to reform our broken labor law system and we will continue to work with Congress to give workers back the freedom to form and join unions and pass legislation that stays true to the principals of the Employee free Choice Act."

And their Pennsylvania president agrees.

But Stewart Acuff, AFL-CIO's Director of Organizing hasn't been so timid.

"The labor movement," he said, "will re-double our already overwhelming efforts in Pennsylvania to convince the Senator to once again support the bill that he was a co-sponsor of in the last Congress."

Labor is re-energized by his decision. Grassroots union activity--already at a fever pitch--is escalating even more....

For any Democrat to side with Corporate America and the radical rightwing against the labor movement and the Employee Free Choice Act today when it is clear that Corporate America and the radical rightwing are responsible for running the American economy into the ditch, are responsible for the highest inequality since 1929, are responsible for the meltdown of our economy, for 30 years of stagnant and declining wages, for our healthcare crisis, and for the squeeze on the Middle Class is inexcusable.

Here's what SEIU's President, Andy Stern, wrote in a memo to the union's Pennsylvania members.

We applaud the Senator on showing the political courage we know it took to change parties--and to move to a place we believe is more closely aligned with his personal convictions. But SEIU has always been an organization that supports candidates and elected officials based on their commitment to working families, not their party labels.

The issues that face working people in Pennsylvania have not changed, and the support we need from our representatives in Congress hasn't changed, either.

We know there have been contradictory and confusing reports about what Senator Specter's decision means for the priorities of working families in our state. In a word: our fight for Employee Free Choice and quality, affordable healthcare continues, as strong as ever.

Specter, though, isn't exactly as committed to employee free choice as, say, the unions are. In fact, he said last month that he plans to vote no on the bill. But of course, that was when he was still a Republican--a Republican tacking to the right to protect himself from a primary challenge by conservative Pat Toomey. Now everything's different and he's suddenly dealing with the fact that he made a number of commitments as a Republican that are proving both difficult to keep and hard to duck as a Democrat. Yesterday, for instance, he kicked things off by announcing his support for the President's agenda, and then joined all of his former caucus members in voting no on the budget. Because that's how he voted on an earlier version of it a month ago.

As time goes on, though, he'll be able to (ahem) ease away from those commitments, or figure out ways around them.

He could buy himself some leeway, for example, by vocally supporting the President's health care plan. Or, perhaps, he could vote for--or even help devise--a compromise on EFCA that appeases conservative Democrats and unions alike. That'll be a hard line to walk, of course. AFL-CIO say their legislative priorities include a binding majority sign-up process, so the "compromise" would probably have to be pretty cosmetic. And if the changes prove too drastic, or if Specter proves to be generally too intransigent between now and next year, labor may end up supporting a primary challenger.

But, obviously, Specter will cast a lot of votes between now and then, and a million other events might intercede. So everything, in other words, still very much up in the air.


11 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Arlen, wake up old man. It's time to play your forever hidden desire to be a Democrat card. Listen to labor or march to Sestak's tune.
Your strategy was mistaken. You may desire to perch along the fence once again but nothing is forever.
Go away, you do nothing for Democrats.

user-pic

The EFCA has two big problems and a single, easy solution.

1. The Specter problem is that he came out so strongly against EFCA, he cannot now vote for it unless the bill undergoes a substantial change.

2. The other big problem is that EFCA's non-secret ballot has been widely demonized as anti-democratic. While it's a spurious argument, it does give Democratic Senators a "seemingly" legitimate rationale to block the bill.

The answer to both problems is to alter EFCA to provide for a secret ballot. No, this alteration should NOT get rid of the snap election "card check" provisions. It should only mandate that the snap elections of card check include an option for employees to secretly fill out their cards.

How? There are lots of ways, but the simplest would be for each card to include an occluded envelope. The vote of the employee would only be revealed once the envelope had been opened by the NLRB.

I believe the anti-union forces have made a massive miscalculation. In basing their entire anti-EFCA strategy on the completely bogus claim that they're oh so "concerned" for the worker's right to a "secret ballot", they've allowed the unions a very simple way to fix the bill.

Two birds, one stone. Of course, the unions should only reveal this compromise right before the big vote, so as to give the anti-union forces no time to fabricate a new objection. Hell, they could even let Specter take credit for the compromise.

Card Check + the Secret Ballot = EFCA Passage

user-pic
The answer to both problems is to alter EFCA to provide for a secret ballot. No, this alteration should NOT get rid of the snap election "card check" provisions. It should only mandate that the snap elections of card check include an option for employees to secretly fill out their cards.

You've fallen for the propaganda, I see. The bill ALREADY includes a provision that allows as few as 1/3 of the employees to force a secret ballot.

The anti-labor crowd will ALWAYS find an excuse. You should know that.

user-pic

I don't know the ins and outs at all and you may be 100% right.

It's definitely true that what they need to do is somehow change the bill (infinite permutations obviously exist), so that Specter can be "won over" and he can explain how he got the "fixes he believes are vitally important" -- then they all save face as you say, and, *bingo.*

user-pic

I for one will never forgive him for his treatment of Anita Hill, and his role in elevating Clarence Thomas to become the most ridiculously underqualified Supreme Court Justice in US history. I'm hoping for a progressive to take his seat in 2010, tho at this point, it appears that that would take nothing short of a miracle.

I understand why Obama and the Dems are welcoming him with open arms, but it seems pretty clear to me that he's still very much a Repug and heart, and I'm betting it won't be long before they have serious regrets about it. Let's hope I'm wrong.

user-pic

I like Sestak. He makes a lot of sense. If I was a Pennsylvania Dem I would vote for Sestak over Specter in a primary.

user-pic

I am a PA Dem and I will absolutely support Sestak if he runs against Specter.

I'm truly ticked that those in Washington (and Rendell as well) are so willing get support Specter as a Democrat. He hasn't done a single thing worth such an endorsement.

It'd be entirely unfair if the Democrats of PA are stuck with no other primary option but a pseudo-Democrat who only came to our party out of political survival.

user-pic

Sestak is doing exactly what he should, as is labor. Specter has no principles other than his own survival. When he thought he'd have a Republican primary opponent, he flip-flopped on EFCA. Only the threat of a well-funded, labor-backed Democratic primary opponent can cause him to flip-flop back to his original position and support most of the rest of the Obama agenda, too. And if Specter doesn't start voting like a Democrat -- Sestak would be able to mobilize thousands of volunteers and have a decent shot at winning.

user-pic

Yup, they should rin Joe in the primary.

Here are the dems who voted against homeowners in Durbin's "the banks own the place" forecloser bill:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Specter (D-PA)
Tester (D-MT)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/30/banks-beat-howeowners-for_n_193902.html

Banks win again.

user-pic

I am happy to see Sestak holding Mr. Magic Bullet's wrinkly old buns to the fire.
~

user-pic

Specter for SCOTUS!

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio

Brian
Beutler

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address