Obama hints at compromise on EFCA

[Enrique]

this is one thing I don't want Obama to compromise on. I thought his statement in support of the Republic Windows workers was a good sign on his commitment to labor, but his talk of "tweaking" the legislation after conferring with the Chamber of Commerce gives me a bad feeling...


http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/obama_on_the_employee_free_cho.php

(...)

Here's my basic principal that wages and incomes have flatlined over the last decade. That part of that has to do with forces that are beyond everybody's control: globalization, technology and so forth. Part of it has to do with workers have very little leverage and that larger and larger shares of our productivity go to the top and not to the middle or the bottom. I think unions serve an important role in that. I think that the way the Bush Administration managed the Department of Labor, the NLRB, and a host of other aspects of labor management relations put the thumb too heavily against unions. I want to lift that thumb. There are going to be steps that we can take other than the Employee Free Choice Act that will make a difference there.

I think the basic principal of making it easier and fairer for workers who want to join a union, join a union is important. And the basic outline of the Employee Fair Choice are ones that I agree with. But I will certainly listen to all parties involved including from labor and the business community which I know considers this to be the devil incarnate. I will listen to parties involved and see if there are ways that we can bring those parties together and restore some balance.

You know, now if the business community's argument against the Employee Free Choice Act is simply that it will make it easier for people to join unions and we think that is damaging to the economy then they probably won't get too far with me. If their arguments are we think there are more elegant ways of doing this or here are some modifications or tweaks to the general concept that we would like to see. Then I think that's a conversation that not only myself but folks in labor would be willing to have. But, so that's the general approach that I am interested in taking. But in terms of time table, if we are losing half a million jobs a month then there are no jobs to unionize. So my focus first is on those key economic priority items that I just mentioned.

[bluestateguy]

1. I still have one question about this bill

Let's say a workforce mounts an effort to unionize by way of card check. They fail to get 50% of signatures. Then a secret ballot is held. The unionization vote fails. What's then to stop the company from making recriminations upon the signers of the card check? Are these signatures private?

[Enrique]

2. federal law prohibits companies from retaliating for union activity

Starbucks recently lost a case for doing that.

[uponit7771]

11. Companies ONLY need to retaliate against a small number of people to be effective and do it to peopl

...who can't afford to fight back after signing (or not even signing now) arbitration clauses.

[elleng]

3. Compromise and negotiation

are inherent parts of political success; please lets not dump on O for doing what's necessary.

[Enrique]

5. I agree in general

on this, I think compromising it would weaken it. And it might not be necessary.

[elleng]

7. so we 'hire' these guys (O+)

to use their best judgment to determine to what extent such is in fact necessary.

[Enrique]

12. some of the people we hire will be stronger on EFCA than others

less willing to compromise. We use our best judgment to decide which of them we agree with more.

[elleng]

14. Of course;

so that then goes to Senate and members of Congress, who have to finally close the deals O makes.

[Enrique]

17. I think Congress will try to get Obama not to weaken the bill

or even not to negotiate at all, push for the version they passed in the House last year. Say to Obama, hey we won, remember?

[elleng]

18. Dems? with Reps?

Senate?

[leftofthedial]

8. is there anything he could do to which you would not apologize for him

and then urge us not to dump on him?


why should we care about "political success." we want policy success.

[elleng]

9. Who are you?

Have we 'met?' I'm not an apologist for anyone; I'm a practical observer. Think about it: no policy success without political success. thats the way the system works, like it or not.

[leftofthedial]

23. no political success matters unless it is rooted in principle.

policy is the expression of principle.

For too long we have allowed DC games to prevent the responsible government that we deserve. It is time for us to once again impress on our political leaders that they work for US, not for one another.

[Thrill]

4. No matter what, this isn't going to pass. It has no Repuke support

unless Specter votes for it again. And Toomey is already threatening to use it against him in a Primary. Also Dems like Blanche Lincoln are already showing signs of being scared to vote for it, with mid term elections. I don't see Congress taking this up in the first 2y.

[Enrique]

6. wow I totally disagree with you

yeah, there's going to be a fight, but it's hardly lost. Do you think the unions and other activists working and spending resources on this are totally doomed to lose?

You know we made gains in the Senate, right?

[Thrill]

10. Yes we did. BUT. It will be filibustered without Specter's support

You need the 60 seats to pass this thing. Again, at this point, you can't even count on Southern Dems like Lincoln to vote for it.

So if Specter votes against it. How are you going to stop the filibuster? This Bill is the one fight the Repukes are going to use the Filibuster. And they have the votes for it.

[Enrique]

13. so why are people fighting for it?

if it's a lost cause, why are they wasting their time and money?

[Thrill]

19. Thats the question I keep asking. I personally just don't see the votes for it

But Again, If they can keep ALL the Dems. And Specter votes for it, then the Repukes can't filibuster. Its all up to him. But I'm a bit worried about Lincoln's latest comments.

[wmbrew0206]

20. Becuase this bill is what was promised to the Unions to get their full support.

Union membership has been declining as a % of the work force as a whole. Unions want to be able to increase their numbers and this bill will make it dramtically easier to do that.

We won this election with a big hand from Organized Labor, now those elected officials now have to make it at least look like they are going to try hard to pass EFCA, even though they know it is not going to make it out of the Senate.

This bill is at the top of the R's kill list. Their base hates this bill and wants it killed by any means necessary. ( I think they'll challenge it's legality, no secret ballot, in the courts if it passes.) Then there is the problem of any D Senator who is from a non-union state in the South or Mid-West and up for re-election voting for this bill. The small business community is against this bill and those owners who would normally vote D could definatly vote R based on this one issue.

Long story short, I don't see any R Senator voting for this and see several D Senators voting against it. Reid won't force a filabuster when he doesn't even have all his senators on board and this bill dies in the Senate. The unions will be told "Sorry we tried but the republicans killed it."

[Occam Bandage]

15. Given how well he's handled the stimulus package so far,

I don't share DU's general pessimism that "I might be open to tweaking it if the other side has some good ideas" really means "I will gut everything I can get my hands on, because I am a sellout."

[boppers]

16. Make Card Check more of a petition measure to have a vote, not a vote by itself.

If a Card-Check *required* the company to bring a vote within 6 months, then labor can argue/explain their current benefits, and the bosses can also argue/explain theirs.

Oh, and make sure that a new Card-Check can be held 6 months after the last vote. ;)

Positive effect: If the bosses screw up for 12 months, after promising better wages, better treatment the system can get petitioned and "recalled", so to speak.
Negative effect: In places with super-high turnover (think call centers), and totally oppressive environments, nobody stays for years.

[wmbrew0206]

21. I think your idea has merit but six months is too short of a time frame.

If a business has to go through the petitioning, lobbying, and voting process every six months, it is going to negatively effect the business performance because too much of the employees and managements efforts will be focused on the process rather than the operation of the business.

I think once a year would probably work better.

[NashVegas]

22. None of These Forces Are Beyond Our Control

We just think they are because we're living in so much debt and terrified of a reduced standard of living.

"Heaven forbid someone should mistake me for a Wal-Mart shopper."

Ethics extract a personal price few seem willing to pay.