Feinstein and - SPECTER - coming together on Employee Free Choice.

[jillan]

snips:

New compromise measures supported by Diane Feinstein and Arlen Specter may pave the way for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

With 900,000 union members in the state of Pennsylvania, the Arlen Specter firewall appears to be crumbling. He knows he can't win a Democratic primary in Pennsylvania without labor, and they have made it clear that their support is contingent on his vote on Employee Free Choice.

proposal would replace the card-check provision, which would allow workers to unionize if a majority signed authorization cards and strip a company's ability to demand a secret ballot election. "It's a secret ballot that would be mailed in ... just like an absentee ballot. The individual could take it home and mail it in," Feinstein said. If a majority mailed the ballots to the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB would recognize the union.

Labor will no doubt be disappointed with such sacrifices to the bill, but if it means getting something passed, they will probably be happy to make these concesssions which satisfy the demands of critics like Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Jim Webb, Michael Bennet, Mark Udall and Ben Nelson.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/feinstein-specter-comprom_b_200427.html

How 'bout them apples :)

[DireStrike]

1. I don't understand why this bill is a big deal

I don't see what it accomplishes, so I don't see what is lost by the changes.

It is a compromise clearly, labor is always forced to give something up and never management. We lost ground. Failure.

But... did we lose a lot? Is it a big difference?

[Rincewind]

6. Why it's a big deal

The anti-union groups don't give a big rat's ass about card check or secret ballot. Under the current law, they can refuse to negotiate, delay, and never sign a contract with little penalty. Even when unions win the vote, they can not get a contract 44% of the time. Under the new law, if a contract is not signed within 90 days, a Federal mediator is brought in to help negotiate. After 30 days of mediated negotiations, if there is still no contract, it goes to binding arbitration. That means, secret ballot, or, card check, if the union wins, there will be a contract within 120 days. That is what the anti-union groups are afraid of.

[DireStrike]

23. OH

Why is that never pointed out? All I've heard about is that card check is easier to pass than secret ballot. Which is a very hard thing to convince people is worth fighting or caring for.

So this isn't compromised away in the specter version, is it? No data yet?

[LakeSamish706]

2. Them apples suck big time and Specter partnering with Feinstein sucks even more....

Neither one of these Neanderthals has a clue and neither one of them should be in the Democratic party. They certainly should not be involved with any kind of Union Negotiation...

[jillan]

4. Specter is giving in, it's a step...

and for the unions, it's a first step too.

It would be nice to give the unions all that they wanted, but if a compromise can be worked out and ballots have to be mailed in to get this bill passed, that may be better than nothing.


I didn't realize that there were so many dems opposed to this.

[Better Believe It]

3. Will opponents of EFCA be required to engage in a filibuster to stop a vote on this bill?

Or will the mere threat of a filibuster be sufficient to have Senators Reid, Feinstein, etc., withdraw the bill?

[backscatter712]

10. With these negotiations, it sounds like the Democrats are actually somewhat serious about this bill.

If we get Franken seated, get all the Conservadems on board with this compromise, and we already have a good idea that Specter's on board with this compromise, chances are we've got 60.

[JVS]

20. They don't need to, it's being gutted for them.

[backscatter712]

5. Interesting compromise.

Linkage:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/feinstein-specter-comprom_b_200427.html

It's not all that I would like, although it's better than nothing, and it's likely to get Specter and the Conservadems on board.

If my understanding is correct, the card-check provision of EFCA will be replaced, along with the old employer-mandated screw-the-worker secret-ballot elections, with a streamlined mail-in-ballot election that would slam the door on the secret-ballot criticisms, and hopefully leave less room for anti-union shenanigans (though I'm not entirely convinced this is enough.) It takes the election out of the hands of the employer and lets workers cast their votes from home, directly to the NLRB. At the same time, it alters the arbitration provisions of EFCA to something Specter would vote for (not a big deal, but we have to have some sort of arbitration with a fixed end, so employers can't screw unions by filibustering the negotiation process.)

Hopefully, the other, less-known provisions, but also important parts of EFCA will be unaltered, such as the provisions that increase the penalties for illegally intimidating and firing workers for being pro-union - the penalties were a joke before, with EFCA, it'll cost a company triple the employee's yearly wages for firing him illegally.

All in all, I want more, but if this gets 60 votes, I'll take it.

[jillan]

7. It sounds like this compromise just might work.

I didn't know that about the provisions for firing a worker for being pro-union.
Sad to think that actually happens in the workplace.

[backscatter712]

8. Yep. The penalties are a joke, and almost never enforced.

In some places (Walmart), it's pretty much established that if you do anything remotely interpreted as pro-union, the management will find a reason to fire you.

Hopefully, under EFCA, and under the Obama administration's NLRB, companies that illegally and unethically jerk their workers around to intimidate and harass them for wanting to organize will get the hammer brought down on them.

[jillan]

9. We have the opposite going on in Phoenix.

We have a union taking down a locally owned grocery chain.
They keep mailing out flyers not to shop there.

It seems to be working too, I was in one of their stores the other day, and it was dead.

[MilesColtrane]

24. Bashas' (which owns A.J.s) has a history of anti-worker actions,...

...including firing union organizers and having them arrested.

Why are you shopping there?

[jillan]

25. I needed a couple of things on the way home, and I passed one.

It was not my major shopping. I don't shop there - they are too f-ing expensive anyway!

[MilesColtrane]

27. Good.

I'd hate to have to turn you in to the Progressive Police.

:hi:

[jillan]

28. Lol.

[quiller4]

15. This compromise could work and it may pull in more than

just the blue dogs. I suspect this is a compromise that would appeal to Snowe and Collins and perhaps a few others.

[Undercurrent]

11. Good for EFCA!

Looks like ole Arlen needed his butt kicked by his "fellow" Democrats to pull it together.

What a dope he is to think he could waltz into the Democratic caucus, crap all over the place, and be treated like a king! But the Democrats didn't kowtow. Instead they stripped his seniority.

[jillan]

12. And the unions in PA reminded him of what it means to be a Democrat.

[Undercurrent]

18. They sure did. hehe

I was just reading about that, and they told Specter to get with the program. Pronto.

Watching the old boy's contortions is pretty entertaining.

As long as we can squeeze votes out of him I don't care what he really thinks about anything. At least in the short term.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. What's happening with DiFi these days? She's becoming more liberal and less DLC-ish these days. n/t

[jillan]

14. She's been Obamatized.

[backscatter712]

16. If this deal is pulled off, it'll show the true difference between Conservadems and the GOP.

The GOP's holding their breath until they turn blue and acting like stubborn two-year-olds, saying "NO!" or "MINE!" every time we try to talk to them.

The conservadems, for all the disagreements we have with them, can be negotiated with. They do what the GOP will not - give a little, compromise a little, meet us halfway. As long as they do that, I can at least give them a little respect. They're being what the GOP should be - opposition that behaves more like adults and is open to horse-trading.

[jillan]

17. If they pull this off, even with the compromise - that would be a huge slap in

the face to repugs - and a huge win for unions.

[JVS]

19. Not a good compromise.

The issue with elections was never about voting procedure, it's about employers' harassment of organizers among the workers in the time leading up to the election.

[Kdillard]

22. I would rather have tis passed and fixed later if necessary than die.

They don't seem to have messed with the other provisions so I am not too unhappy.

[WinkyDink]

21. Arlen has been taken to school, heh heh.

[backscatter712]

26. I think the mail-in-ballots could actually work if it is done right.

Let's start by going through the procedures for abusable secret-ballot elections, and for EFCA card check.

Abusable secret ballot elections:
1. Employees get the idea they want to unionize.
2. Union organizers get union authorization forms (the cards) from the NLRB.
3. Organizers distribute cards to workers.
4. Workers choose to sign or not sign the cards and return them to organizers.
5. If 50%+ of workers sign cards, then employer given choice whether to demand secret-ballot election.
6. Employer demands secret-ballot election.
7. Because election takes time to set up, employer uses the time to threaten workers, fire activists, perform all sorts of nasty shenanigans before election is actually held.
8. Election held, intimidated and coerced workers (and "workers" hired on specifically to vote against a union) vote against unionization.
9. Employer goes BWAHAHAHAHA!

EFCA Card check.
1. Employees get the idea they want to unionize.
2. Union organizers get union authorization forms (the cards) from the NLRB.
3. Organizers distribute cards to workers.
4. Workers choose to sign or not sign the cards and return them to organizers.
5. If 50% of workers sign cards, and less than 30% indicate on the cards they want a secret-ballot election, then union is formed! Otherwise, see procedures for abusable secret ballot elections.
6. (alleged) Organizers who now know the names of the anti-union workers have thugs beat the snot out of them.)
7. Union goes BWAHAHAHAHA!!! (not really, Employees go BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!, but the righttards won't shut up about the union-intimidation-without-secret-ballot thing.)

The new procedure (see the steps to understand why I think this could actually work!)
1. Employees get the idea they want to unionize.
2. Union organizers order mail-in-ballots directly from NLRB. Card check is skipped altogether, and because ballots are set up remotely, Evil Corporation still doesn't know what's about to happen.
3. Union organizers distribute ballots to workers, either at work if they think they can get away from it, or they mail the ballots to workers directly at home so as to prevent shenanigans. (optionally, NLRB mails ballots directly to employees.)
4. Employees fill out ballots and mail them to NLRB. Neither the union or the employer gets to know who voted for or against unionization (shooting down right-wing whiners.)
5. If 50+% of workers vote to unionize, YAY, they have a union!
6. Evil Corporation ambushed with the news from NLRB - "Merry fucking Christmas, you've got a union. Mandatory first-contract arbitration begins at 9:00am tomorrow."
7. Employees go BWAHAHAHAHHA!


See how this works? Union organizers don't distribute card-check forms. They distribute mail-in-ballots, and the evil corporation has no idea what's happening until it's too late.

At least that's what I hope - if the procedure goes like how I showed, IT MIGHT WORK!!! Corporations could be ambushed with unionization, but the right-wing talking point about the secret ballot is neutered!

[burning rain]

29. Those two coming together, or otherwise, is an image I don't need.

^