Specter: We're Close To A Compromise On EFCA
According to the Associated Press, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) announced Thursday that the "prospects are pretty good" for an Employee Free Choice compromise.
"[H]e said he's been meeting with labor leaders and fellow senators in hopes of coming up with a compromise he could support."
The details of that compromise will be crucial, and, for labor to be happy, would probably have to be pretty cosmetic. But, as the AP reminds us, "Specter has said he opposes the "card check" and arbitration provisions of the bill, [leaving] the door open to other changes that would help unions, such as speeding up the election process and giving unions more access to campaign at work sites."
"Card check" and arbitration are the key components of the bill, and Specter, who was once and EFCA co-sponsor, knows how important they are. It would be hugely disappointing to labor if he didn't come back around to supporting both provisions, at least in watered down forms. But if Specter went from full support of a bill to no support of the same bill in the span of a few months, it stands to reason he could turn right back around and support it all over again. We may have an answer soon.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Arlem, please leave the Arbitration part of the bill alone- its the important part. If you really feel a need to forceably have your way with this bill, leave the arbitration out of path of destruction
May 14, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he gets this done and votes for Obama's health care plan it's going to be all the more tough to beat him in a primary.
May 14, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps. But Arlen Specter still will have to vote for Barack Obama's SCOTUS nominee(s?). Just ask fmr. Sen. Alan Dixon (D-Ill.) what happens when you vote to confirm Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court -- even when you have your state's Senate colleague, progressive icon Paul Simon (who was the first Senator to call for public hearings on Anita Hill), backing you.
It's still early, and you never know what issue(s) may arise between now and the PA Senate Democratic primary.
May 14, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he starts voting like a Dem, then I have no problem with him winning a primary.
May 14, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do. Just because he "starts" voting like a Democrat, there's no guarantee he'll "finish" voting like a Democrat.
PA can do better than some 80 year-old Republican who only became a Democrat to save his career.
May 14, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If he starts voting like a Dem, then I have no problem with him winning a primary"--I agree, and please, other commenters, stop already with the references to his age. There are other 80-plus year old reps., senators, supreme court justices, etc. If you think there should be an age-limit on offices, start the ball moving on a constitutional amendment. I for one have seen plenty of incompetent 40 years olds and competent 80 year olds.
May 14, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully, he's just going for a little window-dressing to give him cover for his reversal. Because there is no way in hell labor would support a modified EFCA -- or Specter's reelection -- if these provisions were actually gutted.
May 14, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats would be wise to eliminate the "card check" part, anyway, IMHO. They're getting killed in the propaganda war by seeming to be against secret ballots.
I'm about as liberal as you get, and even I have never seen a good argument for that. And this is handing the GOP a wonderful gift. They're already arguing that the Democrats are beholden to corrupt union bosses.
We should be kicking the Republicans when they're down, not giving them a helping hand up again.
May 14, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they eliminate card check, then enforcement of existing rules is going to have to be massively ramped up.
May 14, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a hunch most Americans don't believe corrupt union bosses are their biggest problem.
Wouldn't it be something wonderful if we had a political party that opposed corrupt corporate bosses? Sorry, so 20th century of me.
May 14, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
efca does not get rid of secret ballots.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
efca allows WORKERS to choose whether or not they need a secret ballot instead of leaving that up to the EMPLOYER. card check makes it easier for workers to unionize. as it stands now the so-called 'secret' ballot requirement is nothing more than a canard that allows employers to impede the formation of unions. republicans aren't interested in protecting anyone's secret ballot, they're interested in preventing unions from organizing. and the ability to request a so-called 'secret' ballot never prevents an employer from finding out who is in favor of unionizing. it only gives them the time to prevent the union from forming.
May 15, 2009 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
and seriously, eliminating card check from efca would not be 'wise' it would be IGNORANT. it's best not to confuse one for the other.
May 15, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink