Posted on May 19, 2010 by EFCAreport

"Mini-Super Tuesday" Fallout for Card Check

The early results are in from yesterday's primary contests, and this morning's talking points focus on the general anti-incumbent trend.  But others, including NAM's ShopFloor.org, have also noted it was a "Tough Night for the Card Check Crowd."

Chief among the figures central to the long-winding evolution of the Employee Free Choice Act is five-term Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.  An original co-sponsor of the 2005 Act, Specter was long viewed as a crucial "bi-partisan" vote for EFCA in the whip count.  Sen. Specter consistently expressed a strong desire to see labor law reform addressed in this Congress. Yet he was also highly critical of EFCA (and the tenor of the related debate) in both a 2007 floor speech on the cloture motion and in a Policy Essay published in the Harvard Policy on Legislation.   Then, on March 24, 2009, Senator Specter made a pivotal floor speech, wherein he declared he would vote against cloture on EFCA as drafted.  In his speech, and in an attached Appendix to his remarks, he expanded further on the various alternative avenues of labor law reform he might support.

Senator Specter's statement -- and guaranteed protection of the filibuster -- likely freed Democrats critical of the bill to state their opposition as well.  Just two weeks later, Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) announced that she would not support EFCA as introduced.  Additional Democrat Senators soon too expressed reservations about the bill.

Then, in yet another interesting turn, in  late April, 2009, Sen. Specter announced that he was switching parties, and would run for re-election in 2010 as a Democrat.  At the time, he declared: "...my position on Employees [sic] Free Choice (Card Check) will not change."  But, as NAM notes today, just five months later, he told the Pennsylvania State AFL-CIO Convention:

We have pounded out an Employees Choice bill which will meet labor’s objectives. I believe before the year is out, and I will join my colleague Senator Casey in predicting, that there will be passage of an Employees Free Choice Act which will be totally satisfactory to labor.

Last night, Senator Specter suffered a substantial defeat in the Pennsylvania Democratic Party primary, losing to challenger Rep. Joseph Sestak (D-PA).  Is this really a rejection of EFCA by the voters as NAM suggests?  Maybe, but it also may be too early to tell as there were clearly a lot of other factors at work here.  It may be noteworthy that his challenger, the Democratic nominee, Rep. Sestak co-sponsored EFCA in 2007 and 2009, and voted for the measure in 2007 when it passed the House.  Interestingly, early in this Congress, he also intorduced an alternative labor law reform measure -- the National Labor Relations Modernization Act (H.R. 1355).  This law would:

  1. provide for mandatory arbitration following a 120-day mediation period, if after an initial 120 days of bargaining failed to result in an agreement;
  2. increase penalties against employers (similarly to EFCA's proposed changes); and
  3. require an employer to provide equal access to the employees to union organizers once an election is ordered.

No further action was taken on Rep. Sestak's bill.

The other key figure mentioned above, Sen. Lincoln, appears to have narrowly finished ahead of her union-backed primary challenger Lt. Gov. Bill Halter (D-AR), but will need to compete in a run-off with Halter come June.  Lincoln has consistently opposed EFCA, drawing the ire of labor groups and consequently, the primary challenge.  EFCA and organized labor were consistently more overt issues in this race, and to NAM's point, Lincoln's victory last night despite the anti-incumbent wave may be a better indicator of anti-EFCA sentiment than the Pennsyvlania result.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on March 27, 2010 by EFCAreport

President Obama Makes Recess Appointments of Two Democratic Appointees to NLRB; Declines to Appoint His Republican Nominee

Earlier today, President Obama announced that he would make recess appointments of nominees Craig Becker and Mark Gaston Pearce to the National Labor Relations Board.  CNN reports that White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki highlighted these appointments:

"The roadblocks we've seen in the Senate have left some government agencies like the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission impaired in fulfilling their mission," Psaki wrote. "These agencies can now get back to working for the American people."

The National Labor Relations Board issued a press release announcing the moves as well::

President Barack Obama today announced the recess appointments of attorneys Craig Becker and Mark Gaston Pearce to fill two vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board.

NLRB Chairman Wilma Liebman, who has served on the Board for 12 years, welcomed the new members saying, “I look forward to beginning work with them, and especially to addressing cases that have been pending for a long time.” Three of the Board’s five seats have been vacant since January 2008. The two remaining members – Chairman Liebman and Member Peter Schaumber – have issued decisions in nearly 600 cases in which they have been able to agree. Last week, the Supreme Court heard argument in a case challenging the Board’s authority to have issued decisions with two members.

The appointment of Becker, a former Associate General Counsel for the AFL-CIO and SEIU, has been the source of much controversy.  Back in February. Democratic Senators failed to break a filibuster on Mr. Becker's nomination --with both Republicans and Democrats voting against cloture.  Republicans immediately siezed on this point tonight as Democrats attempted to paint the President's moves as necessary response to GOP obstructionism:

"The president's decision to override bipartisan Senate rejection of Craig Becker's nomination is yet another episode of choosing a partisan path despite bipartisan opposition," said U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. "This is a purely partisan move that will make a traditionally bipartisan labor board an unbalanced agenda-driven panel."

Moreover, President Obama had nominated three potential members to the Board -- Messrs. Becker and Pearce, and Republican Brian Hayes.   The Senate failed to confirm any of them, although business groups and Republicans made clear that they had no opposition to Pearce and Hayes.  Yet, the President chose today to appoint only Becker and Pearce -- leaving open a fifth spot which has been vacant since December 2007.

More commentary:

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on February 16, 2010 by EFCAreport

Media Round-Up: Senate Recess

As the Senate Recess begins, observers continue to speculate whether President Obama will use recess appointments to place nominee Craig Becker on the National Labor Relations Board.  Last week, Becker's nomination stalled in the Senate when a motion for cloture failed 52-33.  Later in the week, the President strongly suggested that he would not be using recess appointments at this time.  In an opinion piece in today's Politico, University of Texas Professor William E. Forbath asserts that Becker should be confirmed:

Cautious Democrats are urging the White House against making a recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. But these timid Democrats are wrong.

Many argue that the fallout from a Becker appointment would be self-defeating for labor because it would end any chance of getting the Employee Free Choice Act through the Senate. But the EFCA died when Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) took his seat, if it wasn’t dead already. The EFCA won’t pass unless and until the filibuster rules are changed. And then, the Becker appointment won’t matter.

At Human Events, the Heritage Foundation's Brian Darling argues against the use of recess appointments:

A recess appointment can be made to put a nominee into a position temporarily, usually for a year or so, when the Senate is out of session. Many Democrat Leaders in the Senate vigorously opposed President George W. Bush’s use of recess appointments, but now support Obama’s stated intent to use recess appointment authority.

One of the questionable nominees is Craig Becker (for the National Labor Relations Board). Becker was blocked last week by the Senate because many are concerned about his views on the Executive Branch’s power to implement big labor’s agenda without legislation. 

But as noted above, over the weekend, Sam Stein reported in the Huffington Post that the President would not appoint Becker by recess appointment:

Among those on the losing end of the deal struck between Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) are labor unions.  Craig Becker, the president's nominee for the National Labor Relations Board who was filibustered by the Senate this past week, will not get the recess appointment next week that union officials were hoping. Instead, his nomination is either dead or put on hold until the next Senate recess at the end of March.

Elsewhere in the Huffington Post, Bill Lucey had a great piece chronicling the historical use of recess appointments by Presidents, "Examining the 'Recess of the Senate'".

More on this issue:

 

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on February 10, 2010 by EFCAreport

Meyerson in WaPo: EFCA is Dead

The morning after the cloture vote failed on the nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, harsh observations regarding EFCA's prospects from Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson: "Under Obama, labor should have made more progress".  Calling the Obama administration's first year an "unmitigated disaster" for labor, Meyerson writes:

For the unions, the Senate's inability to pass EFCA is devastating and galling. Democratic senators had developed a compromise proposal that would have jettisoned the controversial "card check" process -- by which unions could be organized without a secret ballot -- in favor of expediting the election process (so that management couldn't delay for months, or even years, employees' votes on whether to unionize) and stiffening the penalties for violating the rules that govern election conduct.

The compromise had a shot at winning all 60 Democratic votes. The unions, which spent more than $300 million in the 2008 elections on Democrats' behalf, wanted a vote on EFCA last year, but Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked them to wait until health reform had passed. (Their requests for confirmation votes on NLRB appointees were similarly delayed.)

By my count, this marks the fourth time in the past half-century that labor's efforts to strengthen workers' ability to organize have been deferred by the Democratic presidents and the heavily Democratic Congresses they supported. In 1965, about the only piece of Great Society legislation not enacted was the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act provision that gave states the power to block unions from claiming as members all the employees in workplaces where they had won contracts. In 1979, as American management was beginning to invest heavily in union-busting endeavors, the first effort to reform labor law failed to win cloture in the Senate by one vote as President Jimmy Carter stood idly by. In 1994, President Bill Clinton responded to a similar labor-backed effort by appointing a commission to recommend changes in labor law to the next Congress -- which turned out to be run by Newt Gingrich. And last year, by asking his labor supporters to wait, Obama ensured -- unintentionally, of course -- that the next effort to revive organizing must wait until the next overwhelmingly Democratic Congress.

With the recess appointment of Becker still a viable option for the White House, the President's ability to issue Executive Orders, and the possibility of additional discussions regarding an alternative EFCA bill, it certainly might not yet be as final as that.

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted on February 9, 2010 by EFCAreport

Roll Call on Becker Cloture Posted

The Senate has posted the roll call on the Becker cloture vote here. 

Let the political speculation begin.  What impact did the snow and the shutdown have?  What impact did Senator Nelson's proclamation have on participation?

These Senators did not cast a vote:

Brownback (R-KS)
Byrd (D-WV)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Graham (R-SC)		 Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
 		 Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sanders (I-VT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Perhaps notably, Senators Landrieu (D-LA) and Pryor (D-AR) did not vote.  Their names are often mentioned as Dem dissenters on EFCA.  This list is certain to be dissected by the punditry and interest groups in days to come.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on February 9, 2010 by EFCAreport

Cloture Upheld 52-33 on Craig Becker Nomination

The NAM_Shopfloor and Senatus twitter feeds are reporting, and media outlets are confirming, that the cloture motion to end debate on Craig Becker's nomination to the National Labor Relations Board has failed by a 52-33 margin.  As everyone seems to know nowadays, 60 votes are required to end a filibuster.

Observes NAM:  "Even with snow, a little surprised at small vote."

Boston's WBZ-TV's website notes:

The task for Democratic leaders turned more difficult when at least two Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the lawyer.

Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson was one such Senator, consistent with reports last night.  Politico reports that Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) also voted against cloture.

What now?   A recess appointment of Mr. Becker by President Obama remains a politically charged possibility.  A recess appointment made soon would serve until the conclusion of the next Senate session in late 2011. 

More commentary:

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted on February 9, 2010 by EFCAreport

Pundits Continue To Weigh In On Becker Nomination, EFCA Angle

In advance of a probable filibuster (with growing support) over Craig Becker's nomination to the National Labor Relations Board, Glen Spencer of the U.S. Chamber's Workforce Freedom Initiative and former Clinton-Gore advisor Peter Mirijanian swapped commentary on Fox News earlier today:

The anchor led with the angle that concerns have been raised about Mr. Becker's ability to implement elements of EFCA via administrative action. Challenged by the anchor, Mr. Spencer conceded "it would be difficult to get some of the ideas in the card check bill through administratively, but there's no question, I think, that Mr. Becker would try." In a wide-ranging defense of Mr. Becker's nomination, Mr. Mirijanian dismissed opposition as "politics" and suggested that Mr. Becker would not be able to impose EFCA by "administrative fiat."

As of right now, weather permitting, the Senate intends to take up the vote at around 5 p.m. today.

More commentary:

 

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on February 8, 2010 by EFCAreport

Sen. Nelson (D-NE) to Join Filibuster of NLRB Nominee; "Referendum on EFCA"?

Politico reports Monday night that Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) will support a Republican-led filibuster over President Barack Obama's nomination of Craig Becker to serve on the National Labor Relations Board:

“Mr. Becker’s previous statements strongly indicate that he would take an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB, and that he would pursue a personal agenda there, rather than that of the administration,” Nelson said in a statement. “This is of great concern, considering that the board’s main responsibility is to resolve labor disputes with an even and impartial hand."

We have previously posted on concerns expressed by many that Mr. Becker might seek to implement elements of EFCA via Board decisions and/or rulemaking.  Tonight's Politico piece notes another EFCA connection:

Republicans have tried to make Becker's nomination a referendum on the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier to unionize. In his statement, Nelson said Becker has made several statements that "fly in the face of Nebraska’s Right to Work laws."

Tags: , , ,
Posted on January 21, 2010 by EFCAreport

WSJ: Labor Leaders Assess EFCA's Prospects After Brown Election in MA

Thursday's Wall Street Journal reported that labor leaders met by phone to assess the impact of Wednesday's election in Massachusetts.   The loss of the crucial 60th Democratic vote in the Senate and another major election cycle in 2010 are certain to affect Labor's legislative agenda, including its pursuit of the Employee Free Choice Act:

Tuesday's win by Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts dealt a blow to labor's multiyear, multimillion dollar effort to put Democrats in the majority of the House and Senate. Labor officials viewed the 60-vote Democratic majority in the Senate as essential for passing the organizing bill, which would benefit unions by shortening the time period before union-organizing elections, mandating arbitration of first contracts and boosting penalties for employers who violate labor laws.

The bill was already on shaky ground, due to strong opposition from business, Republicans and some moderate Democrats. Now some labor officials believe it's doomed.

The article contains comment from IAM President Thomas Buffenbarger, AFSCME President Gerald McEntee, and AFL-CIO officials.  Amongst the most noteworthy, this remark by Buffenbarger:

Mr. Buffenbarger said he hoped Tuesday's election would benefit unions in one way, by leading Congress to enact a jobs bill that could include pro-labor provisions, such as requirements that the government purchase items from American companies, including defense concerns where his union represents workers. "The lesson I hope the party takes is what this union has been yelling about for the last three years, jobs," he said.

The White House has been eager to use other regulatory methods to facilitate union organizing, dating back to its earliest Executive Orders almost one year ago.  As a Senator in the 110th Congress, President Obama was one of three co-sponsors of the Patriot Employers Act (S. 1945) which would have provided tax benefits for American employers who met a number of requirements, including observing "neutrality" during employee organizing drives.  The prospect that elements of EFCA find their way into other legislative, administrative or executive vehicles is very real if the legislature concludes that 2010 is not the time to pursue the bill.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on November 19, 2009 by EFCAreport

SEIU President Andy Stern: "2010 or Never for EFCA"

During a panel discussion yesterday, SEIU President Andy Stern told the audience that next year Democrats will need to decide whether they will seize upon their super-majority to pass legislation like EFCA or not:

"The Democrats really have a historic and decisive moment, for anybody who runs a business there are moments where you sort of make big choices," Stern told the audience. "They have 60 votes for the first time and probably the last time they're gonna have it. They have to decide if they are an army of one or an army of 60."

Mr. Stern seemed less than optimistic, however:

"They just have to decide, if not I think they're going to miss a historic moment that won't come back for a very long time," Stern said. "And so far I wouldn't bet with them."

Likewise, in Las Vegas, at the Global Gaming Expo, UNITE-HERE President John Wilhelm struck a skeptical tone:

"There is no possibility it comes up in the Senate this year,” said Wilhelm, also the onetime leader of the Culinary Union. “Whether it comes up next year is open to question, and whether it gets 60 votes in the Senate is open to question.”

He added: “I support it. But I don’t regard it as a magic bullet.”

Tags: , , ,
Posted on October 23, 2009 by EFCAreport

Would NLRB Member Craig Becker Push to Implement EFCA Without Passage of the Legislation?

That seems to be a question being asked by many people following the Senate consideration of President Obama's three nominees to the National  Labor Relations Board.  On Wednesday, the Senate H.E.L.P. Committee approved the nominations.  While the nominations of union attorney Mark Gaston Pearce and Republican Senate Committee policy director Brian Hayes were approved unanimously, eight of the twenty-three Senators voted against moving SEIU attorney Craig Becker's nomination forward.

Immediately following the Committee's vote, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) placed a "hold" on Mr. Becker's nomination.  While editorializing on the Senator's intent, a piece in the anti-corporate publication In These Times identified some of the concerns being expressed about Mr. Becker thus:

As a legal scholar, Becker helped lay the intellectual foundation for the Employee Free Choice Act.

In one law review article, he suggested that much of the work of EFCA could be done through the existing regulatory structure. The NLRB administers the National Labor Relations Act, the primary legislation that governs labor/management relations.

Of course, the author in this case is clearly sympathetic to this course of action.  (In an interesting concluding note. she also suggests that Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) might force the confirmation vote over McCain's hold, and that Democrats would likely prevail on a cloture vote on the confirmations -- all perhaps as soon as October 27.)

That Mr. Becker and allies on the Board might implement elements of the Employee Free Choice Act -- with or without the bill's passage by the Legislature -- is indeed one issue that has been raised by many critical of his nomination.  Both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers have sent letters to the Senate H.E.L.P. Committee expressing this concern.  Ranking Member of the Committee, Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY) acknowledged as much in his released statement the morning of the votes:

While I support moving the package forward as the Chairman and Ranking Member have done in previous Congresses and Senator Kennedy and I did back in 2006, I do have some serious concerns with Mr. Becker’s writings – particularly the potential for radical changes in labor law he has advocated, and argued can be implemented, without Congressional authorization.

Likewise, Committee Chair Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), who has resisted calls for a confirmation hearing on Mr. Becker's nomination, addressed the issue:

"As an academic Mr. Becker has written extensively on a variety of legal topics. He has taken a critical approach to existing law and pushed the boundaries of convention in his field. It’s clear, however, that he understands and respects the distinction between being an intellectual advocate and serving as an adjudicator on the Board. He is fully aware that as a member of the Board his role will be – and I quote from his responses to the Committee’s questions here: – to 'implement Congress’s intent as expressed in the law, to fairly consider all views … to deliberate with my fellow Board members, to utilize the wealth of knowledge and experience possessed by the Board’s career staff, and to fairly and impartially decide cases based on the relevant facts and applicable law.'

We will continue to follow these developments and report on them here.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted on September 17, 2009 by EFCAreport

The Hill: Dem Senators Back Off Specter's Announcement of EFCA Deal

Kevin Bogardus of The Hill remains one of the most active reporters on the status of the Employee Free Choice Act.  His piece this morning compiles the commentary of numerous Democrat lawmakers seeking to mitigate Senator Arlen Specter's (D-PA) assurances to the AFL-CIO that an alternative EFCA bill had been finalized and would pass in 2009.  Confirming an earlier report by the National Association of Manufacturers Shopfloor Twitter feed, Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) indicates in the piece that there have been no formal talks on the union bill since July, and, that moderate Democrats have not been involved in discussions.

Other remarks from the piece:

  • Senator Carper:

“As they say, frank and honest discussion. I think we have made real progress and narrowed somewhat of the differences between organized labor and the business community. We are not quite there yet. My hope is we will finish what we have started.”

  • Senator Harry Reid (D-NV):

Asked about any deal on the bill, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said,” I’m not aware of any.”

  • Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL):

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said the same, calling the issue “a work in progress” and saying he expects the Democrats’ lead negotiator, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), will inform Democrats when a deal is reached.
 

“It’s been in progress for months,” Durbin said. “I think if they ever reach common agreement, they’ll notify us and then we will take it from there.”
 

And confirming Carper's assessment of the "Centrist Democrat" involvement in these talks:

“Nothing final, to my knowledge, has been finalized, but I know members from both sides have been working on, I guess, a compromise,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).
 

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) was surprised to hear the issue was being revived. “From what I understood, the whole card-check issue was dead,” Hagan said.
 

And Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who faces reelection in 2010 and said earlier this year she would oppose the bill, said she is unaware of any changes. “I haven’t heard or seen anything yet,” Lincoln said.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted on September 15, 2009 by EFCAreport

Senator Specter to AFL-CIO: We'll Pass Bill For Quick Elections, Union Access, Baseball Arbitration and Triple Penalties Against Employers in 2009

During the past few days a virtual parade of high-ranking Democrats have addressed the AFL-CIO constitutional convention to pledge support for organized labor and the Employee Free Choice Act.  President Obama, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have all spoken to the assembled union delegates.  Today, The Washington Post Capitol Briefing blog reports Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) delivered the most interesting message regarding the Employee Free Choice Act -- namely, the conceptual contents of the revised bill which will be passed before year's end:

After his speech, Specter detailed the revised bill he has been crafting with Senate Democrats, the rough outlines of which have been trickling out for weeks. The revised measure would not include the most controversial provision -- allowing workers to organize by getting their co-workers to sign pro-union cards, instead of having to hold secret-ballot elections in the workplace. Unions argue that such elections are unfairly dominated by employer threats and intimidation, but the provision to drop the secret-ballot election has proved highly unpopular with conservative Senate Democrats.

Instead, Specter said, the bill would try to make union elections more fair by sharply limiting the time between organizers' declaration that they have enough support to call an election and the day of the vote, to reduce the potential for employer intimidation. Organizers would also be guaranteed access to workers if employers held mandatory anti-union meetings on company time. And the penalties for employers who break labor law rules would be triple what they are today.

The bill would also tweak its other major element, which has gotten less attention but is also anathema to employers -- mandatory arbitration for employers and unions who fail to reach a contract within a few months. As it stands, more than a third of newly formed unions never get a first contract and wither away, which is why labor supporters say mandatory arbitration is needed. But employers vigorously oppose having government-appointed mediators set contract terms. To allay employer concerns that unions would ask for the moon in hopes of the mediator splitting the difference, the revised bill would go with "last best offer arbitration" -- the approach used in baseball arbitration, in which the mediator has to pick one offer or the other, which encourages the negotiators to offer a reasonable deal.

Specter told reporters that he was confident that this package would get the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster -- and not one more. No Republicans would vote for the bill, he predicted, but he was sure that every Democrat would vote against a filibuster, including conservative Democrats who were very wary of the initial "card check" bill, such as Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) He said he had spoken with both of them and while they did not say so explicitly, he was left with the impression that they would help break a filibuster, if not vote for the bill itself.

 More coverage:

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted on September 11, 2009 by EFCAreport

Harkin: "We Had 60 Votes on EFCA in July"

At The Hill yesterday, Kevin Bogardus reported that Senator Tom Harkin told a union lobbying group that but for the late Senator Kennedy's illness, the Senate had 60 votes on a "compromise" draft of EFCA back in July:

“As of July, I can tell you this openly and I know the press is all here but we had worked out a pretty good agreement. Labor was at the table,” Harkin told a crowd of activists organized by American Rights at Work, a labor advocacy group. The activists are set to swarm Capitol Hill Thursday to lobby for the bill.

Harkin said prominent labor leaders were on board with the deal, including AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union.

“That’s when we needed 60 votes and that’s when I called to get Sen. Kennedy down because we needed him for three days. That’s when Dr. Horowitz told me that he couldn’t make it,” Harkin said.

Whether this is merely an encouraging message to an important Democratic constituency, is hard to determine.  And unless and until Massachussets changes its laws to allow Democratic Governor Deval Patrick to appoint a successor, or Kennedy's seat is filled by a special election early in 2010, it seems unlikely that anything will happen to corroborate the Senator's claim.  Harkin refused to provide any additional detail about the brokered version of the bill:

“I will not say because it was closely held, it never leaked out and it still hasn’t,” Harkin said. “I took it off the front-burner and put it on the back-burner so it is still on warm, OK?”

However, back in June, Senator Harkin had asserted that he would likely be in position to advance the legislation once Al Franken was seated in the Senate in July; and, not too long before that, Harkin was reportedly in significant discussions to reach consensus on an alternative.

More on these events:

Tags: , , , ,
Posted on August 28, 2009 by EFCAreport

Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) on EFCA: "Too Many Other Things on Our Plate"

 

Roll Call reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said Thursday that passing EFCA is no longer a priority for the Senate this year:

Speaking at a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, Reid said the chamber’s schedule is too crowded to consider the Employee Free Choice Act, otherwise known as “card check.”

"We have too many other things on our plate,” Reid said.

But even if the Senate’s schedule was freed up later this year, it is unlikely Reid would bring the bill to the floor short of major changes to the legislation. Republicans have universally panned the bill — as have a few Democrats — making it impossible for Reid to break a Republican filibuster.

The Roll Call piece refers to this Las Vegas Review Journal article covering Reid's address to the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce.  It would seem that Reid's comments confirm recent speculation reagrding the timing of EFCA's treatment in the Senate.  Earlier this week, the AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka indicated the White House said they would not push EFCA until at least after the Senate resolved the current healthcare debate.  Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) subsequently suggested that might not happen before the end of the year.

The passing of Senator Kennedy (D-MA) this week further complicated the timeline for EFCA's consideration as it reduces the Democrat caucus in the Senate to 59 votes under the best of circumstances to pursue cloture on any particular piece of legislation.  While there are some in Massachusetts now pursuing a politically-motivated amendment of state law, the statutes -- amended in 2004 to prevent then Gov. Mitt Romney (R) from filling Sen. Kerry's seat (D-MA) if he won the Presidency -- currently prohibit the Governor from appointing a replacement to the Senate.  A special election must be held between 145 and 160 days after the vacancy -- or not before late January 2010.

It remains to be seen whether the House will proceed with consideration of the bill this year, if for no other reason than to force candidates for office in 2010 to take a position.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on August 16, 2009 by EFCAreport

Senator Specter Will or Will Not Vote for Cloture on EFCA

At the Liberty Live blog, Scott Dilley posts this C-Span video of Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) appearing to change course on the issue of cloture on EFCA:

Senator Specter has certainly seemed a good deal more erratic in his public pronouncements on the issue since his announcement that he was switching parties concluded:

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees [sic] Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Just last week, for example, at a Town Hall meeting, he told a vocal opponent of the bill that the secret ballot must remain a part of the process, that Senators were still addressing the issue of mandatory interest arbitration, and that ultimately "people will ... have an opportunity to understand what the issue is."

Senator Specter seems to be equivocating a bit nowadays, perhaps due to an evolving position, or perceived electoral pressure on both flanks.  But it is also fair to note that throughout most of his early commentary on the bill, he always left open the likelihood that he would support some version of the bill:

The problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employees Free Choice legislation. Employers understandably complain that adding a burden would result in further job losses. If efforts are unsuccessful to give Labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the NLRA, then I would be willing to reconsider Employees’ Free Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.

Tags: , ,
Posted on July 24, 2009 by EFCAreport

Atlanta Business Chronicle: "Revision May Speed Passage of Union Bill"

Today's Atlanta Business Chronicle contains a piece on EFCA suggesting "Revision may speed passage of union bill" (subscription).  McKenna Long & Aldridge partner and EFCA Report blogger Richard Hankins is quoted throughout, including the following passages:

The first major development on the proposal in months occurred when moderate Democrats in the Senate this month decided to drop the bill’s so-called “card-check” provision allowing unions to organize at a work site as soon as a majority of workers signed a card saying they wanted a union. The card check essentially would have replaced secret-ballot union elections.

For months, business groups assailed the provision as an affront to the liberties of American workers, and it became a lightning rod for criticism not only among congressional Republicans but moderate Democrats.

Even though Democrats now hold a 60-40 advantage in the Senate, the card-check threatened the bill’s chances of passage, said Richard Hankins, a partner in the Atlanta office of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP who specializes in labor relations.

“This compromise is to get past a filibuster,” he said.

And, echoing an earlier blog post here:

“What if we had to vote on our political leaders with five days’ notice?” Hankins said. “Many employees are simply not going to know ... anything about the union or its effect on their jobs.”

Finally, regarding the ultimate fate of the bill:

Hankins said getting rid of card check makes it more likely that the Employee Free Choice Act will clear the Senate.

But he said the more liberal House of Representatives probably still will pass the original version of the bill, with the card-check provision intact, leaving the measure’s final fate up to a joint House-Senate conference committee.

“The concern is that card check would come back at that point and work its way into law,” he said.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted on July 6, 2009 by EFCAreport

Franken's Swearing In Expected to "Accelerate" Push to Create EFCA "Compromise"

Al Franken appears set to be sworn in as U.S. Senator on Tuesday, July 7.  EFCA steward, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) said last month that he was waiting on Franken's seating to introduce the "compromise" version of the bill that he has been working on with Democrats and organized labor.  That has led many to speculate that a revised EFCA may be brought to the Senate floor in the next week or so.  Politico notes today:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), sponsor of the labor-backed Employee Free Choice Act, has been telling union leaders that Franken’s presence could accelerate the push to create a compromise bill more quickly than Reid’s 2010 timeline, according to people familiar with the situation.

Still, as we noted last week, the Politico piece also identifies numerous hurdles which remain for any Democratic legislative priority, including EFCA:

Democrats are short two ailing members — Sens. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) — two legislative titans who simply can’t be counted on to show up for any given vote at this point in their lives.

Then there are a handful of members on Reid’s right flank — Nebraska’s Ben Nelson, Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, Indiana’s Evan Bayh and wild-card independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut — who tend to be loyal but could buck him on health care reform or climate change legislation.

Add endangered 2010 candidates Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), and the number of rock-solid cloture votes in Reid’s pocket drops to between 52 and 54.

The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) has identified a number of Senators who have either expressed opposition to, or concern with, EFCA in its current form, and asked its membership to reach out to them:

While it is important that every Member of Congress hear from manufacturers (and distributors) on this important issue, it is critical to contact the following Senators during the July 4th recess period to urge them to oppose all votes (including cloture) on EFCA in any form:

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), phone 202-224-5623, fax 202-228-1377
Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) phone 202-224-5852, fax 202-228-5036
Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) phone 202-224-6342, fax 202-228-2563
Senator Mary Landrieu(D-LA) phone 202-224-5824, fax 202-224-9735
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) phone 202-224-4843, fax 202-228-1371
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) phone 202-224-6551, fax 202-228-0012
Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) phone 202-224-2353, fax 202-228-0908
Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) phone 202-224-4254, fax 202-228-1229
Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) phone 202-224-2023, fax 202-224-6295
Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) phone 202-224-4024, fax 202-228-6363

Regrettably, only Specter and Pryor have been reported to be involved in Sen. Harkin's "compromise" discussions.  Since those conversations also appear to involve the AFL-CIO, but not a single member of the business community or Republican caucus, one might seriously contest the use of the term "compromise" to describe what is truly going on.  Hopefully, the American public will at least have the opportunity to hear and consider a sober, reflective debate about the respective positive and negative elements of any proposed labor reform bill.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on July 5, 2009 by EFCAreport

OPINION: "Workplace Democracy" Shouldn't Be Decided Behind Closed Doors (and Other Ironies)

#EFCA  #efcafail

By some accounts, the most significant revision of U.S. labor policy in decades may be passed by the Senate after a backroom deal, with little, if any, formal debate.  

We’ve been blogging about EFCA since early 2007, and, while we make no pretense about our management bias, we’ve tried to maintain a civil tone.   We’ve reported developments and offerred insight, but we’ve tried not to be inflammatory. Enough people on both sides of the issue are working that angle. Pardon us then for this temporary departure from our usual form.

For months now, it has been assumed that even with sixty members in the Democratic caucus, the Employee Free Choice Act was doomed to fail in its original form.  The word from Washington has been that Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), and others have been discussing "compromises" to the original bill.  Details about those discussions have been hard to come by.   Now that the sixtieth caucus member is about to be seated, we hear that a compromise is almost complete, and that the new bill may pass the Senate within a few days of being introduced. 

Does no one in Washington see the irony in a backroom deal on workplace democracy? Collective bargaining is supposed to be about giving workers a voice in things that affect them through representatives of their own choosing. Who is participating in these closed door meetings? How are the Senators ascertaining that the voices they hear are the true voices of workers? And what about the business community? Shouldn’t they have a voice in this legislation, which may or may not result in wages and benefits being dictated by an arbitrator? The Senate has long been hailed as the most deliberative legislative chamber. It should conduct those deliberations openly – especially on issues that purport to address workplace democracy.

Tags: , ,
Posted on June 30, 2009 by EFCAreport

MN Court Declares Franken Winner of Senate Seat; Coleman Concedes; What's Next for EFCA?

The Minneapolis Star Tribune and CBS report that the Minnesota Supreme Court has affirmed the trial court decision declaring Al Franken (D) the winner of last year's Senate election:

"We affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast" in the election, the decision states. The justices also explicitly ruled that Franken is "entitled" under Minnesota law to receive the certificate of election as senator.

The judges stated that Coleman has "not shown that the trial court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous or that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion." They ruled unanimously for Franken, 5-0.

Subsequent reports note that Coleman has conceded.  Once Franken is seated, the Democrats will hold 58 seats in the Senate, and two independents, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), often caucus with them on labor issues.  It has long been speculated that this development would lead to a resurrection of efforts on behalf of the Employee Free Choice Act. 

Expect a renewed wave of enthusiasm by the bill's supporters in the days to come.  Still, once Franken is seated as the second Senator from Minnesota, EFCA in its current form faces an uphill battle.   Many of the 60 votes possibly controlled by the Democrats have openly questioned the bill's current provisions -- Sens. Lincoln, Feinstein, and Bennet to name but a few.  Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA), whose recent famous party switch put the Democrats this close to the prospect of cloture on any given measure, has consistently criticized EFCA as currently drafted.  On April 28 of this year, he reiterated that stance:

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees [sic] Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

What this likely means is that the various parties pursuing alternative labor law reform measures will now step up those efforts.  Among these underway:

More coverage of today's news:

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted on June 22, 2009 by EFCAreport

EFCA Round-Up: Monday, June 22, 2009

At ShopFloor.org, NAM criticizes the AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka for accusing the Association of acting through "front groups":

Labor calling business coalitions “front groups” is meant to imply shadowy, dishonest organizations created to hide one’s alliances. It cannot conceivably be applied to the Coalition for Democratic Workplace, the group the National Association of Manufacturers is active in. In our Shopfloor.org posts on the CDW’s activities, we almost always include a line associating the NAM with its efforts, such as, “The National Association of Manufacturers is a member of the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and glad of it.” And here’s the CDW’s membership list.

If Trumka wants his attacks against “front groups” to have some modicum of intellectual honesty, he might want to level them via some other group than the International Centre for Trade Union Rights.

The Alliance for Worker Freedom has issued a new press release asserting that bailing out the failing union multi-employer pension system is the true aim of EFCA:

“The unions’ ulterior motive behind the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is to use the forced binding interest arbitration clause to mandate companies fund the underperforming and underfunded union pension plans,” says AWF Executive Director Brian Johnson. “For companies, the choice is clear: shut down immediately or go out of business due to loss of capital to pay for operating costs by being forced to fund a failing system – it’s that easy.”

The Hill reports that neither Democrat Senator from Montana -- Sen. Max Baucus or Sen. Jon Tester -- will proclaim support for EFCA as currently drafted:

"It would be very hard to support the bill in its current form, but that is why I'm working with my colleagues in the Senate to bring some common-sense modifications to the bill to make sure it balances workers' interests with small-business interests," Baucus told The Missoulian, which did a two-part series on EFCA's potential impact on Montana.

Tester's spokesman meanwhile said EFCA "isn't ready for a Senate vote yet," and added that Tester would weigh the bill's pros and cons before deciding on how to vote.

Finally, at Think Progress, Matthew Yglesias makes the following observations about the filibuster:

I don’t think you need to appeal to the idea that people prefer to pander to the caucus’ worst instincts so much as simply the fact that legislators prefer to do nothing at all. The supermajority—and, more broadly, the extreme difficulty of moving legislation—makes it easier for elected officials to make contradictory commitments to various people. Consider that as long as Democrats clearly didn’t have the votes to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, they could promise labor law reform to unions while also reassuring business that no such law was going pass. After the election suddenly there were sixty members who’d promised to vote for EFCA, which created an awkward situation for those members who, in fact, preferred to do what business wanted and killed it. They had to flip-flop in a not-very-pretty way and anger a lot of people. If it took 67 votes to move a bill, they would have been in much better shape, loyal friends to Wal-Mart and the AFL-CIO alike.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on April 28, 2009 by EFCAreport

EFCA Swing Vote Senator Arlen Specter to Switch Parties

Longtime Republican Senator Arlen Specter (PA) announced today that he will run for re-election in 2010 as a Democrat.  Per the New York Times:

Mr. Specter, the long-time Republican party maverick, faced a difficult re-election next year, against conservative opponent Pat Toomey, the former Pennsylvania representative.

If Al Franken prevails in his ongoing court case in Minnesota and Mr. Specter begins caucusing with Democrats, Democrats would have 60 votes and the ability to deny Republicans the chance to stall legislation. Mr. Specter was one of only three Republicans to support President Obama’s economic recovery legislation.

Regular readers of this blog, and other followers of the Employee Free Choice Act, know well Senator Specter's critical role in the ongoing evolution of the proposed legislation.  In the last Congress, Specter was the only Republican to cross the aisle and vote for cloture on H.R. 800.  In his floor speech at the time, he outlined a number of his concerns about the current state of American labor law.  Soon after, in the summer of 2008, Senator Specter co-authored a Policy Essay in the Harvard Journal of Legislation, criticizing EFCA, but reiterating the need for substantive labor law reform.  Then, on March 24 of this year, Senator Specter took to the floor to announce that he was withdrawing his support for the bill.  In so doing, the Senator once again emphasized his opinion that significant alternative labor law reform was necessary:

If efforts are unsuccessful to give Labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the NLRA, then I would be willing to reconsider Employees’ Free Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.

He suggested a number of elements that might be considered in such an effort, and encouraged all parties to approach the issue seriously and constructively. 

So, what now for EFCA?   Senator Spector's March 24th announcement was seen as a roadblock to the 60 votes needed for cloture.  In concluding his statement issued today, Specter proclaimed:

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees [sic] Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

At first blush, it would seem that this move -- forseen by some for a while -- might not have immediate impact on EFCA's prospects.  Certainly there are enough other Democrats -- Sens. Lincoln, Feinstein, and Bennet to name a few -- who have expressed opposition to the bill following Specter's March 24th announcement.  And Senator Specter's critiques of the bill as currently drafted appear principled and longstanding.  But he also left the door open in his March 24th statement.  To be sure, today's announcement may have more impact on EFCA's prospects in the 112th Congress, should its proponents decide to regroup and wait.

Tags: , ,
Posted on March 25, 2009 by EFCAreport

Video: Senator Specter's Floor Statement

The 2007 cloture remarks and the law review policy essay referenced by Senator Specter in these remarks are available in our library here.  The Appendix of suggested alternatives is featured in a prior post here.

Tags: , ,
Posted on March 25, 2009 by EFCAreport

Labor and the Left React to Sen. Arlen Specter's Announcement

Regarding Senator Arlen Specter's (R-PA) surprising announcement earlier that he will oppose cloture and passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, the Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports:

Labor officials are incredibly distraught and, in some cases incredulous, noting the Specter co-sponsored the bill in 2003 and voted for cloture just last year. But while it is a setback for the legislation's chances, Democrats are not conceding defeat. According to the Huffington Post's Ryan Grim, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared after Specter's speech that "He's not the only Republican who has indicated a willingness to consider something being done... He's not the only suspect."

In The Atlantic, Marc Aimbinder writes that Specter's announcement did not close the door on EFCA for good:

By 2010, regardless of whether Specter is re-elected, Democrats will (probably) have another shot at card check, and here Specter is indicating a political compromise: give me the cover for two years, and I'll give you the 60th vote in 2010. Of course, if the economy IS in recovery by then, the urgency to pass pro-labor legislation might be less acute.

SEIU President Andy Stern released a statement initially suggesting Sen. Specter is a hypocrite, but ultimately striking a more conciliatory tone:

It's simple: If you support democracy, you should support the right to debate legislation that could improve the lives of millions of working Americans, pump $49 billion into the economy at a time when we desperately need it, and that's supported by the vast majority of the public.

We look forward to working with Sen. Specter and the rest of the Congress to find ways to give workers the free choice to join a union free from intimidation and harassment.

As of this evening, the AFL-CIO had not yet posted it on its media webpage, but both its blog and TPMDC featured portions of a statement by President John Sweeney:

Today’s announcement by Sen. Specter—a sponsor of the original Employee Free Choice Act who voted for cloture in 2007—is frankly a disappointment and a rebuke to working people, to his own constituents in Pennsylvania and working families around the country.

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted on March 24, 2009 by EFCAreport

Senator Specter's statement on the Senate Floor Opposing EFCA

The conclusion of Senator Specter's statement on the Senate floor today:

The emphasis on bipartisanship is, I think, misplaced. There is no special virtue in having some Republicans and some Democrats take similar positions. The desired value, really, is independent thought and an objective judgment. It obviously can’t be that all Democrats come to one conclusion and all Republicans come to the opposite conclusion by expressing their individual objective judgments. Senators’ sentiments expressed in the cloakroom frequently differ dramatically from their votes in the well of the Senate. The nation would be better served, in my opinion, with public policy determined by independent, objective legislators’ judgments.

The problems of the recession make this a particularly bad time to enact Employees Free Choice legislation. Employers understandably complain that adding a burden would result in further job losses. If efforts are unsuccessful to give Labor sufficient bargaining power through amendments to the NLRA, then I would be willing to reconsider Employees’ Free Choice legislation when the economy returns to normalcy.

I am announcing my decision now because I have consulted with a very large number of interested parties on both sides and I have made up my mind. Knowing that I will not support cloture on this bill, Senators may choose to move on and amend the NLRA as I have suggested or otherwise. This announcement should end the rumor mill that I have made some deal for my political advantage. I have not traded my vote in the past and I would not do so now.

Read the entire statement at the Senator's website.

Tags: , ,
Posted on March 24, 2009 by EFCAreport

More on Specter's Floor Statement

More coverage across the internet regarding Senator Specter's floor statement today that he will oppose cloture on EFCA:

 

Tags: , ,
Posted on March 24, 2009 by EFCAreport

Sen. Specter is Opposed to Cloture on EFCA

National Journal's CongressDaily today reports:

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., will vote against a cloture motion to limit debate on the Employee Free Choice Act, business groups said today. Keith Smith, who directs labor policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, said his group expects Specter to announce his decision in a floor speech early this afternoon. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said it also was expecting the announcement. Specter's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Specter's opposition could doom the legislation because to pass the bill organized labor needs 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster. That means keeping every single Democratic vote, securing a win for Democratic candidate Al Franken in the ongoing Minnesota Senate race and keeping Specter, who voted for cloture when the Senate considered the bill in 2007, on board.

We have long speculated that Senator Specter (R-PA) wished to drive an alternative discussion on labor law reform.  Recent developments -- the Maine GOP Senators' agreement with Specter on the stimulus, the formation of Senator Evan Bayh's (D-IA) "Practicality Caucus," and the announcement of the Committee for a Level Playing Field -- certainly suggest opportunities by perceived moderates to change the debate. 

We will post more information about Senator Specter's statement as it becomes available.

(Hat tip: ShopFloor.org)

Tags: , ,
Posted on March 9, 2009 by EFCAreport

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) to introduce EFCA on Tuesday

This weekend we asked:

Now that it seems we're losing more than a half a million jobs a month, one has to wonder whether EFCA's proponents could possibly be serious about re-introducing the bill this coming week.

The answer via Reuters:

A bill making it easier for U.S. workers to unionize will be introduced on Tuesday in the House of Representatives, escalating a battle between congressional Democrats and corporate America.

The bill would let employees form a union if a majority of them in a workplace sign authorization cards.

That would change the present practice in which workers usually vote in elections on unionizing, although the bill would leave elections as an option for employees to choose.

The measure will be filed in the House by California Democratic Rep. George Miller, chairman of the House labor committee, said spokeswoman Rachel Racusen.

ShopFloor.org notes the puffery of a supremely confident "unnamed Democratic official" who told Politico:

“The fact that the bill is being introduced so early in the session is an indication of it being a priority and of confidence in the vote count..."

Of course, EFCA was introduced over a month earlier in the 110th Congress, on February 5, 2007, and failed to pass.  As for the "confidence in the vote count," we've repeatedly noted the obstacle EFCA's sponsors face regarding cloture in the Senate.  Any one of a number of things could preserve a filibuster against the bill:  the ongoing dispute over the Al Franken-Norm Coleman seat in Minnesota; Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) vote; the emergence of reluctant moderate Democrats like Sen. Lincoln (D-AR) or Sen. Landrieu (D-LA) among others, etc.

What may be more interesting to watch will be the "confidence in the vote count" in the House.  Last time around, in 2007, EFCA had 233 co-sponsors.  In November 2008, the Democrats picked up an additional 21 seats, for a total of 257 votes.  Will EFCA's supporters surpass the previous level of majority sponsorship this time?

Apparently, we'll see tomorrow.  

Tags: , , , ,
Posted on March 5, 2009 by EFCAreport

March 9, 2009: Will They or Won't They?

Recent reports -- though some from less serious sources -- have suggested that EFCA's sponsors may re-introduce the bill as early as Monday, March 9th.   Then other observers -- even some supportive of the bill -- have indicated that it is not likely that the bill will be re-introduced so soon.

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions does have a hearing scheduled for Tuesday, March 10th entitled "Rebuilding Economic Security: Empowering Workers to Restore the Middle Class."   One would expect that EFCA will be a primary driving force behind that hearing.  So, it would seem sensible that the bill might be re-introduced adjacent to, or relatively near, that date.  

Still, during a forty-three (43) minute address to the AFL-CIO's Executive Council earlier today, Vice President Joe Biden made only passing reference to EFCA -- albeit to pledge the administration's support.  And yesterday, The Hill reported:

“We have not made a decision on timing for introduction of the bill,” said Aaron Albright, spokesman for the House Education and Labor Committee. Miller (D-Calif.) is chairman of the committee.

Samuel also said he was not aware of any move to introduce the bill next week.

“I am not sure where they got their information. As far as I know, there has been no decision made,” Samuel said. 

Then again, Mr. Samuel has also stated that he believes that if Al Franken (D) is ultimately seated, they have 60 Senators lined up to vote for EFCA.  That seems unlikely -- as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) sounds less inclined to vote for cloture this time around, and Sens. Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) earlier today again clarified their lack of enthusiasm for EFCA.

We will update accordingly as more information about next week's hearing and legislative calendars become available.

Tags: , ,
Posted on February 17, 2009 by EFCAreport

UAW President Likens EFCA Opponents to Racists

The blog of the Commerce and Industry Association of New Jersey is unwilling to let UAW President Ron Gettelfinger get away with one of the more outrageous broadsides in the ongoing "debate" over EFCA.  Late last week, CIANJ highlighted a response to Gettelfinger's recent Detroit News piece.  Apparently unable to muster a compelling, objective argument in support of EFCA, Mr. Gettelfinger instead devoted a column to tarring those who would oppose EFCA -- and use the legitimate, lawful rules of the Senate to do so -- with the broad-brushed smear of racism.

After introductory allusions to the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960's, racist employers, and "cowardly terrorists" who would attack black voters in the night, Gettelfinger submits:

The effort to stop social progress was led by Dixiecrats -- Southern Democrats who stood for the privileged elite against the will of a majority of the American people. Today, their spiritual heirs have changed political parties, but they still reward the fortunate few who hold wealth and power and trample the needs of everyone else.

CIANJ's piece extensively quotes a response from Coalition for a Democratic Workplace's Chairman Brian Worth.  Elsewhere, Mr. Worth's rebuttal appropriately calls Mr. Gettelfinger on his unfortunate diatribe:

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger crossed the line when he injected race into the debate over whether American workers should have the right to vote in private during union organizing elections ("Worker rights bill deserves debate, vote," Feb. 6). By comparing opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act to the Southern senators who blocked civil rights legislation in the 1960s, Gettelfinger undermines his own credibility and does a disservice to the labor movement.

Ironically, if one were to lend any legitimacy by continuing analysis of Mr. Gettelfinger's analogy, it should be striking that it was the right of African-Americans to vote freely -- and by secret ballot, protected from the coercion and intimidation of the "cowardly terrorists" -- that so many brave people fought for during the Civil Rights era. 

How undermining the protection afforded by a secret ballot in representation elections better protects voters remains a question EFCA proponents are unable to answer.

Tags: , ,
Posted on February 15, 2009 by EFCAreport

Pennsylvania Sunday Papers on EFCA and Sen. Specter

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette both carry pieces today on the probability that EFCA may be re-introduced in the coming weeks.  We have previously observed -- both in prior blog posts and in our white paper on EFCA in the 111th Congress -- the central role Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter (R) will play in EFCA's prospects this year.  That notion is reflected throughout today's PA newspapers.     

The Post-Gazette today declares "Specter: The man in the middle."  The piece notes the pressure on Specter from organized labor regarding the effort to pass EFCA:

The bill, which would make it easier to organize workers, is labor's top priority and considered anathema by the business community, which claims it would eliminate the right to a secret ballot. Most political experts say labor, which has supported Mr. Specter in his past two re-election bids, has to be behind him in order for him to win in the general election.

"Arlen Specter will not be our candidate in 2010 if he doesn't support an opportunity for Americans to have free elections in the workplace," said Bill George, president of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, who added if Mr. Specter wins his union's endorsement he expects a lot of labor members to cross over in the Republican primary to vote for him.

Suggesting that the bill will be re-introduced in Spring or Summer, the Tribune-Review reports:

Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter was the only Republican to vote for the Senate measure. Sweeping Democratic gains at the polls in November -- Democrats hold 58 Senate seats -- puts card-check back in play.

It is unclear whether Specter will support the bill again. His office declined to comment.

Specter, who stands for re-election next year, is under fire from fellow Republicans for agreeing to vote for the $787 billion stimulus package and would face more political rage in the Republican primary if he votes for card-check. Yet, should he win the primary, voting for card check could help significantly in the general election in a state with nearly 1.25 million more Democrats than Republicans.

The Tribune-Review follows up with an Opinion piece, asking "Nervous, Sen. Specter?"  Featuring quotes from a potential GOP primary challenger, the paper submits:

Arlen Specter isn't in just a bit of hot water these days — he's fully immersed in a scalding cauldron.

That's how we read the results of a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday that illustrates the difficulty Pennsylvania's senior senator might have getting re-elected next year.

With more than a year to go before Specter would even face a challenge in the Republican primary, more people believe Specter should be retired than retained. Forty-three percent of the survey's respondents said Specter should be retired; just 40 percent favor retaining him.

If Senator Specter remains intent on pursuing alternative routes to labor law reform, the tightrope he must walk may be getting more challenging.  But, even these articles note, it is a position in which he has often found himself during his tenure in the Senate.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on February 3, 2009 by EFCAreport

Update: Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) Nominated for Commerce Secretary

The White House’s blog reports:

President Obama called Republican Senator Judd Gregg a "master of reaching across the aisle" in announcing him as his choice to lead the Commerce Department today.

"Clearly, Judd and I don't agree on every issue -- most notably who should have won the election," President Obama said. "But we agree on the urgent need to get American businesses and families back on their feet. We see eye to eye on conducting the nation's business in a responsible, transparent, and accountable manner. And we know the only way to solve the great challenges of our time is to put aside stale ideology and petty partisanship, and embrace what works."

"The Commerce Department has a broad and interesting portfolio," Senator Gregg (R-NH) said, "but its primary goal must be to create jobs by promoting industry, promoting economic activity, and promoting excellence in science. And I intend to pursue those avenues aggressively."

Gregg joins Secretary Ray LaHood (Transportation) and Secretary Robert Gates for a total of three Republicans in the cabinet.

But only one of them was a Senator who voted against cloture in the 110th Congress -- and may now be replaced with an appointment by the Democratic Governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch. These developments potentially place EFCA opponents on the brink of a successful cloture vote when the bill is introduced. Media outlets report, however, that there was in fact a deal struck between Gregg and Lynch with preserving the filibuster in mind:

Gregg said he refused to accept the post if that happened, and won assurances from Lynch that a Republican would be named to succeed him. Former Gregg aide Bonnie Newman is expected to be appointed to Gregg's seat.

Could these rapidly breaking developments have been the spark that seemed to kick start the activity around EFCA again the past few days?

Tags: , ,
Posted on February 3, 2009 by EFCAreport

Deal or No Deal? Gregg Tabbed for Commerce

Today’s Boston Globe reports that President Obama will, in fact, nominate New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg for Secretary of Commerce. If Gregg accepts, that will create a vacant seat which will be filled by appointment. Governor John Lynch (D-NH), according to reports, appears set to appoint a Republican to that seat -- thereby preserving the current balance of seats in the Senate:

Lynch said that Gregg would only take the job on condition that a Republican be appointed to serve out his term, an assertion Gregg quickly confirmed. Lynch said he had spoken to Gregg, who would be the third Republican in Obama's Cabinet, and to the White House, and he seemed inclined to give the new president and the state's senior senator what they needed to make a deal.

"It is important that President Obama be able to select the advisers he feels are necessary to help him address the challenges facing our nation," Lynch said in a statement. "If President Obama does nominate Senator Gregg to serve as commerce secretary, I will name a replacement who will put the people of New Hampshire first and represent New Hampshire effectively in the US Senate."

New Hampshire Democrats widely expect Lynch to choose J. Bonnie Newman, a Republican with extensive Washington experience and ties to both Gregg and Lynch. That view was endorsed by one person with knowledge of the successor discussion, who also said Newman, who could not be reached yesterday, would not run in 2010, when Gregg's term is up. That may mitigate Democratic anger over the highly unusual arrangement by giving the party a shot at winning an open seat.

Maintaining that seat as a GOP seat would keep the current tally at 59-41 -- including the Independents in the Dem Caucus, and assuming Al Franken succeeds in the pending Minnesota litigation. As noted previously, it will take sixty (60) votes in favor of cloture to end a Republican filibuster and allow EFCA to proceed to the Senate floor.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on February 2, 2009 by EFCAreport

If Sen. Gregg (R-NH) Steps Down For Commerce Post, Critical GOP Seat Put in Play?

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire has emerged as President Barack Obama's top choice for commerce secretary, with an announcement coming as soon as Monday, an Obama administration official and lawmakers said Sunday.

Gregg (R-NH) voted against cloture on EFCA in the 110th Congress, and with Minnesota’s seat still in question, may remain a critical vote when the measure is re-introduced some time this year. If he accepts this post, appointment of a pro-EFCA Senator could mark a seismic shift in the bill’s prospects. Under state law, Democrat Governor John Lynch has the responsibility of appointing a successor. 

New Hampshire’s voters this past November elected a pro-EFCA Democrat, Sen. Jean Shaheen, to replace EFCA opponent John Sununu. 

Many see Lynch as a centrist, who has appointed Republicans to key administration posts and who might reach across the aisle here. 

White House officials claim they know nothing. Sen. Mitch McConnell says he isn’t worried. Those concerned about EFCA must follow this closely as it could be a bigger story than it would appear on its surface. 

Tags: , ,
Posted on January 27, 2009 by EFCAreport

EFCA's Prospects in the 111th Congress

When EFCA was introduced in the last Congress, President Bush had vowed that he would have vetoed the bill. He never had to, as a Senate filibuster killed it well short of his desk.

H.R. 800 was introduced on February 5, 2007, by Rep. George Miller (D-CA). On March 1, 2007, after only two and one-half hours of debate, the House of Representatives passed EFCA by a vote of 241 - 185.  Thirteen Republicans voted in favor of the measure, while only two Democrats voted against it.

EFCA encountered an almost immediate “silent filibuster” in the Senate. The bill’s supporters were not able to secure the votes needed to end the filibuster, moving EFCA forward to the floor for an “up or down” vote on the bill itself. On June 26, 2007, the Motion to Invoke Cloture failed to garner the sixty (60) votes required. Every Democrat, except Sen. Tim Johnson (ND) who was unable to vote due to illness, voted for cloture. Every Republican, with the exception of Sen. Arlen Specter (PA), voted against cloture. The result was a 51-48 failure to end debate.

The 2008 election saw the Democratic caucus expand its majority in the House from 235 to 256 seats. Barring a significant re-thinking of the issue  -- by the newer “Blue Dog” faction of the caucus, for example -- EFCA is expected to pass easily when re-introduced in the House. 

Once again, the Senate is likely to prove the most important factor. The EFCA lobby’s ability to get the bill passed depends almost entirely on its ability to get sixty (60) votes to end a filibuster. There are some appointments and legal challenges still up in the air -- most notably the recount litigation in Minnesota. It appears likely, however, that as a result of the November elections, eight (8) Democrats will replace former Republican Senators who voted against cloture. If every single Senator who voted on the cloture motion in the 110th votes the same way in this Senate, the eight (8) new Democrats vote for cloture, and Sen. Johnson is able to cast his vote, that adds up precisely to the sixty (60) votes needed to bring EFCA to the floor of the Senate for a vote. It is safe to say with those numbers that ultimate passage would be highly likely. 

There is some question whether or not Senator Specter will break with the G.O.P. to cast the determinative vote. Sen. Specter has expressed a strong desire to see labor law reform addressed in this Congress. Yet he has been highly critical of EFCA (and the tenor of the related debate) in both his 2007 floor speech on the cloture motion and in a Policy Essay published in last Summer’s Harvard Policy on Legislation.

Moreover, the Democratic Senators from Arkansas -- Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln -- have both expressed varying degrees of doubt about the need for the legislation and suggested the possibility of some form of compromise. 

Tags: , , ,