Is Obama Backing Off a Crucial Pledge to Labor?

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/12/09/18554089.php

by CounterPunch (reposted)
Tuesday Dec 9th, 2008 7:51 AM

It’s only been a month since hundreds of thousands of union members and their families helped Barack Obama win key “battleground states.” Yet, already, some labor supporters of the president-elect fear he may be backing away from a key campaign promise to workers threatened by recession.

While running for office, Obama said he strongly backed the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a long overdue labor law reform measure that should be part of his promised economic stimulus plan. However, when Obama introduced his top economic advisors on Nov. 25 and talked about steps to “jolt” the economy in January, EFCA was not part of the package. More disturbingly, his new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, declined to say whether the White House would support EFCA when he was questioned about it at a Wall Street Journal-sponsored “CEO Forum” earlier in November.

EFCA is vehemently opposed by big business because it would enable workers to unionize and negotiate first contracts more easily. The bill would amend the 73-year old National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) so that private sector employers have to bargain with their employees when a majority sign union authorization cards. Just as the NLRA did, as a centerpiece of the New Deal, EFCA would encourage collective bargaining to raise workers’ living standards and restore greater balance to labor-management relations. Beginning in the late 1930s, this federal labor policy helped create a vast new post-World War II American middle-class.

Now, facing the worst financial crisis since the Depression, the Democrats have an unparalleled opportunity to link labor law reform to their broader economic recovery efforts. As economist Dean Baker, from the Center for Economic and Policy Research, points out, “If workers are able to form unions and get their share of productivity gains, it could once again put the country on a wage-driven growth path, instead of growth driven by unsustainable borrowing.”

Tax cuts, home foreclosure protection, extended jobless benefits, and a public jobs program are all fine, EFCA supporters say. But expanded use of labor’s traditional tool for “self help” (i.e. collective bargaining) is needed just as much and doesn’t require new federal outlays like the recent $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. With newly-won bargaining rights, both hourly and salaried employees would gain a seat at the table, when management decisions are being made during the hard times ahead. Even amidst down-sizing, they would have more say about lay-offs, severance pay, and recall rights, not to mention pay, health care benefits, and the funding of troubled retirement plans.

More
http://counterpunch.org/early12082008.html

[bluestateguy]

1. If the Congress passes EFCA Obama will sign it

A president can only take an active leadership role on a few issues at a time. We all have our highest priority issues. For whatever reason, EFCA is not at the top of Obama's list at this time. But the party in Congress has to be expected to take a leadership role on certain issues too. Many people perhaps need to be reminded that the president does not "submit" any legislation to Congress. All legislation originates there, with a congressional sponsor. If the Democrats in Congress support EFCA, then pass it. Obama will sign it.

[VADem11]

2. No

Asked if Obama's support for the Employee Free Choice Act remained as strong as his public proclamations suggested on the campaign trail, transition spokesman Dan Pfeiffer responded, succinctly, "Yes."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/03/obama-team-restates-stron_n_147939.html

[demosincebirth]

3. He better push to get it passed

and then sign it or there will be backlash against him from the union ranks.

[Better Believe It]

4. And let's not hear the filibuster excuse

That Democrats lack 60 votes to end a filibuster.

Let the Republicans filibuster against EFCA .... eventually they'll run out of gas and the filibuster will end.

Remember the filibusters against civil rights legislation in the 1960's. The right-wing anti-civil rights Senators filibustered against the bills. The Democrats and Republicans who supported the civil rights acts did not fold with the threat of a filibuster.
They hung in there until the anti-civil rights Senators folded and ended the filibuster.