Senator McCaskill on This Week: Dems Don’t Have the Votes for EFCA, Do They Have a New Plan?
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.
After weeks (and weeks) of delay, prompted by Republicans concerned about her pro-union past, the U.S. Senate voted 80-17 to confirm Rep. Hilda Solis as Secretary of Labor. 
