Harkin: Compromise On EFCA Or Else
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), the chief sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, has a warning for Democratic foes of his flagship legislation: Work with me in earnest on a compromise, or I'll put the bill on the Senate floor and you can vote your conscience.
That may not sound like a grave threat, but it may well be. Two of the bills main skeptics--Sens. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)--face re-election next year, and both, for different reasons, may ultimately need union support to prevail. Specter, who tacked to the right and came out against EFCA before becoming a Democrat, is facing pressure from the Democratic base and Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) to move left or face a primary challenge.
And at least one high level union official has suggested that if Lincoln doesn't come around and support an EFCA compromise, she may face a green party challenger, in addition to a Republican challenger, in the general election.
Specter, who's been feeling the heat, has said that he thinks the prospects for compromise are likely, while Lincoln still says she opposes EFCA's so-called "binding arbitration" section--one of the bill's less-controversial measures.
| TOPICS: Arlen Specter, Blanche Lincoln, Democrats, EFCA, Joe Sestak, PA-SEN, Senate, Senate '10
Josh
Matt
Eric
Go, Tom! Call the motherfuckers OUT!
But watch your back - the anti-EFCA knives might be in the hands of "Democrats" from the White House.
May 20, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
What possible basis can you have for that assertion?
May 20, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right -- I've seen nothing indicating anything other than support for EFCA in the White House.
May 20, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
not paying attention to obamas republican white house?
May 20, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harkin is great!
May 20, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can we get rid of Spineless Harry and install Harkin?
May 20, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm fairly sure you have to check in your spine at the door on day one.
May 20, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's cool to see a dem with some spine. Too bad its so seldom...
May 20, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Forget pressuring Blanch, being anti-union in Ark is never a hindrance and her Republican opponent is, shall we say, not too much of a threat
May 20, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her GOP oponent may not be a threat in a two candidate race. If it becomes a three way race are you sure that she will win a plurality?
May 20, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being anti-union may not be a problem in Arkansas, but a weak democrat facing a union-funded progressive candidate could come in third. She'll be a lot more worried about the unions not donating to her, and dealing with a 2-front campaign. There comes a point where taking your base for granted will no longer get you reelected, and Blanche may be at that point.
May 21, 2009 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tom Harkin as Majority Leader? That would be a dream come true!
I actually find myself thinking that losing a Senate seat, even to a Republic! might be worth it to rid ourselves of Weak Reid. It is idiocy to have a vulnerable and utterly venal party "leader" in the Senate.
I actually believe those who have posted about how "tough" and "ruthless" Reid is in local (Las Vegas) politics. If it affects his personal power, he'll slip a stiletto into anyone's back. However, when it comes to actually leading the historically HUGE, majority party in a direction that compromises his corporate backers, even if to the benefit of we, the people, he's surprisingly flaccid and hapless. We've seen enough of his leadership powers since 2005.
I don't say he's an unwelcome Democratic vote. He ranks about 70% with Americans for Democratic Action and 100% with (gulp) NARAL. I'd like him to win re-election, but he seriously needs to be booted out of his as yet, still unfulfilled position; preferably by someone who might actually use it. Tom Harkin is a lifelong (proudly) liberal Democrat and he's not afraid of controversy. His seat is very, very safe, too.
Kick Harry to the back bench, NOW. He's either a tool or a toad. He will NOT speak truth to power, but he certainly will capitulate on a contributor's dime.
May 20, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well done, KeithL. Fact-filled, tightly-reasoned, obscenity-free. Obviously you have no future in blog commenting. :-)
May 20, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give him credit for keeping his powder dry, for the battles that actually matter.
When the entarwebs went crazy over the effrontery of Lieberman being allowed to keep his chairmanship - even though he had said Awful Things about the President! - he played it cool, and said nothing he'd have to pay interest on, at a later date. Lieberman's a loss on anything that doesn't improve on our existing Middle East policy from an Israeli perspective, but Reid didn't threaten an otherwise reliable vote to make the vocal minority feel good about itself.
I'd like the passage of meaningful laws to be easier and faster, but that is what we should measure Reid by.
May 20, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, how do we know that Reid isn't on board with EFCA, and hasn't decided that an internal confrontation between members rather than a top-down approach is the best way to pass it?
May 20, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I actually find myself thinking that losing a Senate seat, even to a Republic! might be worth it to rid ourselves of Weak Reid. It is idiocy to have a vulnerable and utterly venal party "leader" in the Senate."
as a matter of fact, I just left a message with the NSRC volunteering to help them do just that.
reid's numbers in Nevada are low. and i would rather have a republican freshman with no real power holding that seat than a powerful majority leader who blocks progress and makes so many foolish mistakes.
May 20, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear Hear!!
May 22, 2009 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, binding arbitration is a linchpin in the bill -- in many ways as or more important than the majority sign-up provision which has generated the lion's share of controversy. Today, 44 percent of the time workers form a union, employers do not agree to a contract. Even when agreement is eventually reached, it often takes years. Employers determined to resist unionization and willing to "risk" tiny NLRB penalties for violating the law simply refuse to bargain in good faith even after a union has been certified.
Is there a compromise that could be reached that would satisfy the qualms Lincoln (D-WalMart) has and that would still force employers to bargain in good faith and not delay? I have no idea.
The bottom line, though, is kudos to Harkin for pushing this and pressuring invertbrate Dems.
May 20, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly -- they're publicly fighting "card check" because it's easier to demagogue about, but arbitration is the provision they really want to kill. "Less controversial," my ass!
May 20, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another point -- corporate America just LOVES binding arbitration when it comes to consumers. Just look at the language on your credit card agreement, insurance or any other transaction and you'll find big business wants you to waive your right to your day in court and resolve any disputes through binding arbitration.
They just don't want to be subjected to it by unions.
But then I guess corporate hypocrisy isn't exactly news these days.
May 20, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. I'm old enough to remember voting for Harkin for president in a NH primary.
May 20, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Passage of EFCA would be worth the loss of two Democrats in the Senate if need be. If they can't help workng people excercise their right to form unions, then fuck em!
May 20, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Adam Smith would have supported EFCA:
http://grandhotelabyss.blogspot.com/2009/05/adam-smith-union-man.html
May 20, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The threat may not work because of the vote your conscience clause. That's way over the top:) Maybe we could start with something small, like, I don't know, represent the people.
May 20, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting. Reid acts as though it's impossible for him to bring a bill or a nomination to the floor for a vote if he doesn't have sufficient votes in his own goddamn party to guarantee victory, but Harkin can say OK, I'm gonna bring EFCA to the floor and make you take a public stand of record. What am I missing here? Harry's spine?
May 21, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're going to work to get Reid defeated and are willing to see a Republican win, have the honesty to become a Republican. We need sixty votes--if Coleman were put in instead of Franken we'd be irate--and yet you are willing to defeat a sitting Democratic senator and deprive us of the 60th vote. If you really want to defeat a Congressional democrat go over to the House, there's a lot more of them there and any one is not so important.
May 22, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink