Posted on March 10th, 2009 by Tim Eavenson | No Comments »
Filed under: Labor Law, Politics | 
After months (years, really) of prep and wrangling, The Employee Free Choice Act finally took center stage today.
EFCA was introduced mid-day by Representative George Miller (House Education and Labor Committee Chairman) and Senator Tom Harkin (see picture).
The two hit on the EFCA support bullet points, tying the bill to the economic crisis (even though it’s been around for over a year) and major labor improvements of the 20th century. From a press release:
“Americans’ wages have been stagnating or falling for the past decade. For far too long, we have seen corporate CEOs take care of themselves and shareholders at the expense of workers,” said U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee. “If we want a fair and sustainable recovery from this economic crisis, we must give workers the ability to stand up for themselves and once again share in the prosperity they help to create.”
“Just as the National Labor Relations Act, the 40 hour week and the minimum wage helped to pull us out of the Great Depression and into a period of unprecedented prosperity, so too will the Employee Free Choice Act help reinvigorate our economy,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “Today is one of those defining moments in history as we introduce legislation that puts power back into the hands of the people who are truly the backbone of this economy.”
I don’t have to tell you this is going to be bloody. The Chamber of Commerce responded to EFCA’s introduction by descending on Washington D.C. like a swarm of flying monkeys. Though, they described themselves differently. From the Washinton Post:
The Chamber of Commerce brought nearly 200 Chamber members from around the country to Washington today to lobby the senators who will decide the bill’s fate for a campaign they’re billing a “Workforce Freedom Airlift.”
They gathered this morning in the grand Hall of Flags in the Chamber’s headquarters across from the White House, where national leaders of the chamber praised them as the “first Marines hitting the beach” to defeat a “job killer” of a bill that would violate American democracy and bring further ruin on a beleaguered econonomy.
The Chamber of Commerce invoking Normandy? There’s a joke about VFW halls in there somewhere.
Both sides have made it clear that EFCA only has to jump one hurdle, but it’s a big one – like 60 votes big. Republicans have been threatening (some would argue saving) the fillibuster against EFCA since it first knocked its way around the House in ’07. And while some Democrats seem willing to compromise (see Claire McCaskill on last Sunday’s This Week, or this alternative bill introduced by Rep. Sestak), if the Chamber’s lobbying is to be given any weight, their efforts are likely in vain. Again, from WaPo:
“The only thing that stands between this Draconian, game-changing legislation and your workplace is the filibuster,” said Steven Law, the chamber’s general counsel. “It is critically important to be very clear: There is no compromise.”
Posted on March 9th, 2009 by Tim Eavenson | No Comments »
Filed under: ., Labor Law, Politics |
Last week, it was supposed to be today. As we reported, the blog world was buzzing with news that EFCA would be introduced to the House this morning. But so far (1:45 ET), it hasn’t happened. Why?
Ask Claire McCaskill.
Yesterday, Senator McCaskill appeared on ABC News’s This Week and told George Stephanopoulos she didn’t think the Democrats had the votes to pass EFCA. So forget what anybody said last week; the blogosphere now has a new story to buzz about.
But I don’t think the votes story is really the hottest potato in the fryer here. I’m no political junkie, but I took some communications classes in college, and one of the most hard-and-fast rules I learned was: if a public speaker starts with a head turning announcement, pay attention to what they say next:
SEN. MCCASKILL: … I would say that I think it would be fair that we have a secret ballot for decertification of unions. Right now, businesses can go with a card check.
There is no secret ballot to get rid of a union, but there is a requirement of that for people to be able to organize. And to me, that seems unfair. Let’s — what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Let’s put people on a level playing field and have both businesses have to have a secret ballot to decertify. Until they do that, I’m not sure they’ve got a lot of room to complain.
(HT: Labor Pains)
So what, right? She’s turning the argument around as a way of making a case for EFCA. Essentially, she’s saying “we’re getting card check for elections because you get it for decertifications.” Right?
Right?
Well… Taken together, I’m not sure if McCaskill’s statements can be taken so straightforward, and I wouldn’t go so far as Labor Pains and say she’s calling the card check process unfair.
Maybe it’s my undying hope for compromise, or my inherent mistrust of political speech, but it seems to me McCaskill didn’t just say “we don’t have the votes.” She might as well have added “…and we’re not gonna.” And that means they’re going to have to make some changes.
What to do when EFCA loses support in the midst of the financial crisis? Remember, there’s a lot to the bill that would help unions that has nothing to do with the chard check provision. There’s stepped up penalties for employers in unfair labor practice disputes, binding arbitration after 90-days on first contract negotiations, and an overall pro-labor policy shift at stake, too.
So what if you took out that issue that’s hanging everyone up, that the Chamber of Commerce has latched onto to staunchly oppose the bill’s passage? What would the Conservatives do if, this late in the game, the Democrats took away the focus of their ire – and their pitches to the public (read: media)?
What if the Dems took out the card check provision, and replaced it with mandatory secret ballots for decertification elections instead? I mean, the mainstream media calls this bill “Card Check”. If you take out the card check, you cut the legs off the story. Cut the legs off, and the media either loses interest or they re-brand the bill as a Democratic compromise that Republicans should accept with open arms.
If the media loses interest (because re-introducing a bill to the public with a new, boring name will not be on the front page, I promise), it relieves pressure, and maybe you get a couple of shy voters back on your side. If the bill gets re-branded, well, you try and come up with a whole new anti-legislation campaign at the last minute. And even if you could, we have plenty of proof that the Republicans aren’t that good at it (see, e.g., recent Presidential campaign).
Either way, the Democrats get the rest of the bill passed, which will still tilt American labor law almost as drastically toward the unions, and they do it with the support of a popular president and either a disinterested or favorable media.
So don’t get lost in the fact that the votes aren’t there. A shift in EFCA would be a sly move on the Democrat’s part, one I’m sure they’d never make without the support of organized labor. And the debate over what to do is probably raging within the party itself right now, but something will move soon – either the bill or the politicians, so keep your eyes open.
Posted on March 4th, 2009 by Tim Eavenson | No Comments »
Filed under: ., HR Issues, Labor Law, Politics |
Word is spreading that the Employee Free Choice Act will be introduced in the House of Representatives on Monday, March 9. Release the rhetorical hounds!
Yesterday, the L.A. County Federation of Labor posted a call for union members to “phone bank … from the streets” on Monday in support of the bill’s introduction. EFCANow! corroborated, noting the early introduction was an effort to “preempt the continued lies” of corporate-sponsored lobbying groups.
Those stories were picked up by Shopfloor.com (“Preempt continued lies? How does that work exactly — time travel?“), and from there blew into the blogosphere like the partisan-tinged hot air sure that’s to follow it.
The bill will supposedly be introduced by Rep. George Miller (D-Cal 7th) and Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass), and the pro-EFCA groups are claiming the two sponsors have assured the 60 Senate votes necessary to pass the bill in its present form. I’ll wait for the results on that one.
This post is preliminary, and we’ll keep updating as we get info. Oh, and if and when EFCA ignites, we’ll blow up, too. Much, much coverage to come…
Hat Tip: Like many things that interest us, we first noticed the report on Workplace Prof Blog.
Plus, of all the brief commentary I just had to read, Jeffrey Hirsch gets the gold for “The economy may dull the fight somewhat, but I still expect this one to get bloody. At the least, I may have fewer people ask me if labor law is still relevant.”
