Specter Says No to EFCA
Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, the only Republican to vote for cloture the last time the Employee Free Choice Act came up, today dealt a blow to union supporters. Specter announced that after much consideration -- and after being the subject of months of intense lobbying from both sides -- that he would not support a vote to block a filibuster this time around.
In June 2007, the vote on the Employee Free Choice Act was virtually monolithic: 50 Senators, Democrats, voted for cloture and 48 Republicans against. I was the only Republican to vote for cloture. The prospects for the next cloture vote are virtually the same. No Democratic Senator has spoken out against cloture. Republican Senators are outspoken in favor of a filibuster. With the prospects of a Democratic win in Minnesota, yet uncertain, it appears that 59 Democrats will vote to proceed with 40 Republicans in opposition. If so, the decisive vote would be mine. In a highly polarized Senate, many decisive votes are left to a small group who are willing to listen, reject ideological dogmatism, disagree with the party line and make an independent judgment. It is an anguishing position, but we play the cards we are dealt.
[...]
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 NRLA 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.
Specter, who is facing a tough primary challenge from the right, pushed Dems to consider amending the National Labor Relations Act instead of attempting new legislation. There is still time left for Dems to work on other Republicans or other legislative options as the bill was not expected to come up until after health care reform in the Fall. Specter's full statement is after the jump.
******************************************************************************************************
Specter Speaks on the Employee Free Choice Act/Card Check
Washington, D.C. (March 24, 2009) – U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) today spoke on the Senate floor concerning the Employee Free Choice Act/Card Check.
Senator Specter's full floor statement, including the appendix, follows:
I have sought recognition to state my position on a bill known as the Employee Free Choice Act, also known as card check. My vote on this bill is very difficult for many reasons. First, on the merits, it is a close call and has been the most heavily lobbied issue I can recall. Second, it is a very emotional issue with Labor looking to this legislation to reverse the steep decline in union membership and business expressing great concern about added costs which would drive more companies out of business or overseas. Perhaps, most of all, it is very hard to disappoint many friends who have supported me over the years, on either side, who are urging me to vote their way.
In voting for cloture - that, is to cut off debate - in June 2007, I emphasized in my floor statement and in a law review article that I was not supporting the bill on the merits, but only to take up the issue of labor law reform. Hearings had shown that the NLRB was dysfunctional and badly politicized. When Republicans controlled the Board, the decisions were for business. With Democrats in control, the decisions were for labor. Some cases took as long as eleven years to decide. The remedies were ineffective.
Regrettably, there has been widespread intimidation on both sides. Testimony shows union officials visit workers' homes with strong-arm tactics and refuse to leave until cards are signed. Similarly, employees have complained about being captives in employers' meetings with threats of being fired and other strong-arm tactics.
On the merits, the issue which has emerged at the top of the list for me is the elimination of the secret ballot which is the cornerstone of how contests are decided in a democratic society. The bill's requirement for compulsory arbitration if an agreement is not reached within 120 days may subject the employer to a deal he or she cannot live with. Such arbitration runs contrary to the basic tenet of the Wagner Act for collective bargaining which makes the employer liable only for a deal he or she agrees to. The arbitration provision could be substantially improved by the last best offer procedure which would limit the arbitrator's discretion and prompt the parties to move to more reasonable positions.
In seeking more union membership and negotiating leverage, Labor has a valid point that they have suffered greatly from outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries and losses in pension and health benefits. President Obama has pressed Labor's argument that the middle class needs to be strengthened through more power to unions in their negotiations with business. The better way to expand labor's clout in collective bargaining is through amendments to the NLRA rather than on eliminating the secret ballot and mandatory arbitration. Some of the possible provisions for such remedial legislation are set forth in an appendix to this statement.
In June 2007, the vote on the Employee Free Choice Act was virtually monolithic: 50 Senators, Democrats, voted for cloture and 48 Republicans against. I was the only Republican to vote for cloture. The prospects for the next cloture vote are virtually the same. No Democratic Senator has spoken out against cloture. Republican Senators are outspoken in favor of a filibuster. With the prospects of a Democratic win in Minnesota, yet uncertain, it appears that 59 Democrats will vote to proceed with 40 Republicans in opposition. If so, the decisive vote would be mine. In a highly polarized Senate, many decisive votes are left to a small group who are willing to listen, reject ideological dogmatism, disagree with the party line and make an independent judgment. It is an anguishing position, but we play the cards we are dealt.
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 NRLA 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.
***
Appendix
SOME SUGGESTED REVISIONS TO THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
(1) Establishing a timetable:
(a) Require that an election must be held within 10 days of a filing of a joint petition from the employer and the union
(b) In the absence of a joint petition, require the NLRB to resolve issues on the bargaining unit and eligibility to vote within 14 days from the filing of the petition and the election 7 days thereafter. The Board may extend the time for the election to 14 additional days if the Board sets forth specifics on factual or legal issues of exceptional complexity justifying the extension.
(c) Challenges to the voting would have to be filed within 5 days with the Board having 15 days to resolve any disputes with an additional 10 days if they find issues of exceptional complexity.
(2) Adding unfair labor practices:
(a) an employer or union official visits to an employee at his/her home without prior consent for any purpose related to a representation campaign
(b) an employer holds employees in a “captive audience” speech unless the union has equal time under identical circumstances;
(c) an employer or union engages in campaign related activities aimed at employees within 24 hours prior to an election.
(3) Authorizing the NLRB to impose treble back pay without reduction for mitigation when an employee is unlawfully fired
(4) Authorizing civil penalties up to $20,000 per violation on an NLRB finding of willful and repeated violations of employees' statutory rights by an employer or union during an election campaign
(5) Require the parties to begin negotiations within 21 days after a union is certified. If there is no agreement after 120 days from the first meeting, either party may call for mediation by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
(6) On a finding that a party is not negotiating in good faith, an order may be issued establishing a schedule for negotiation and imposing costs and attorney fees.
(7) Broaden the provisions for injunctive relief with reasonable attorneys' fees on a finding that either party is not acting in good faith
(8) Require a dissent by a member of the Board to be completed 45 days after the majority opinion is filed;
(9) Establish a certiorari-type process where the Board would exercise discretion on reviewing challenges from decisions by an administrative law judge or regional director.
(10) If the Board does not grant review or fails to issue a decision within 180 days after receiving the record, the decision of the administrative judge or regional director would be final.
(11) Authorizing the award of reasonable attorneys' fees on a finding of harassment, causing unnecessary delay or bad faith
(12) Modify the NLRA to give the court broader discretion to impose a Gissel order on a finding that the environment has deteriorated to the extent that a fair election is not possible.
-
1
Is there a simple explanation of the difference in impact between an NLRA amendment and the EFCA?
-
2
53_3
.
With the NLRA amendment there still has to be a vote after the union turns in 30% of the employees names (although they usually turn in 50%) but with EFCA no vote has to happen after the cards are turned in unless the workers request it.
.
These modifications of the NLRA are actually good ones primarily because of the one that mandates a vote 10 days after the names are submitted. See the big problem from the labor standpoint is that in between the time they turn in the names and the day they take a vote employers are notorious for intimidating their workers into voting against unionization and or firing them in the interim. With it only being 10 days in between the hope is they wouldn't have time to exert a lot of influence on the outcome. Its not exactly as strong as EFCA but I think its a huge step up from what is currently in place. -
3
Glad this went down, for now at least. It's a terrible bill. The unions want it because they can't win an election anymore. It's just like the recording industry running to the government for protection because they can't adjust their business model to the existence of the internet.
-
Unions used to have merit and be a positive force for workers in this country, now they're a bunch of special interest crime and corruption riddled institutions that heartily deserve the slow death they're dying. -
4
Specter the traitor will not be in office after 2010 anyways. So this is a non-issue.
-
5
sgwhite,
-
Unions generally won't try to unionize a store or plant with less than 60% or 70% signing on to the cards. Card signing doesn't necessarily translate into voting. -
6
Thanks for this report, Jay Newton-Small.
-
7
Sean DeCoursey
.
Thats what they do but thats not whats mandated. Whats mandated right now is 30%. -
8
Thanks, SG.
.
A lot can happen in 10 days. Maybe the corporate skuldudgery can be controlled, I see some language concerning unlawful firings etc but hope that if they do the NLRA route, they cover this.
.
Sean's comments point to the end-product of corporate shenanigans. If it were not for the intimidation and threats, I think a 60 to 70% signing would turn into votes. -
9
53_3
.
I should have also pointed out that the penalties are good but I don't think they are harsh enough. Basically when employers fire an employee during the interim before a vote to unionize what they calculate is the legal costs of being sued compared to the cost of bargaining with a union and having to raise their wages and benefits. Obviously more times than not litigating a case (that might not even be brought by the worker) usually ends up more cost effective than doing collective bargaining with their workforce so they fire one person and make a statement. End of unionizing. The crazy thing is accusations of employee intimidation dwarf those of union intimidation yet you still get this false equivalence to try to justify not voting for the EFCA. Oh and one final note, you don't have to vote to decertify a union but employers definitely aren't complaining about that. -
10
Sean DeCoursey:
.
My understanding is that the elections currently mandated are ripe grounds for intimidation and pre-busting.
.
A proponent says:
."The current process for forming unions is badly broken and so skewed in favor of those who oppose unions, that workers must literally risk their jobs in order to form a union. Although it is illegal, one-quarter of employers facing an organizing drive have been found to fire at least one worker who supports a union. In fact, employees who are active union supporters have a one-in-five chance of being fired for legal union activities. Sadly, many employers resort to spying, threats, intimidation, harassment and other illegal activity in their campaigns to oppose unions. The penalty for illegal activity, including firing workers for engaging in protected activity, is so weak that it does little to deter law breakers.
.
Even when employers don't break the law, the process itself stacks the deck against union supporters. The employer has all the power; they control the information workers can receive, can force workers to attend anti-union meetings during work hours, can require workers to meet with supervisors who deliver anti-union messages, and can even imply that the business will close if the union wins. Union supporters' access to employees, on the other hand, is heavily restricted.".
An opponent says:
."Under the existing law today, workers have a chance to vote for or against unionization in a private-ballot election that is federally supervised. Under Card Check, if more than 50% of workers at a facility sign a card, the government would have to certify the union, and a private ballot election would be prohibited--even if workers want one. By forcing workers to sign a card in public - instead of vote in private - card check opens the door to intimidation and coercion. Over 70% of voters agree that a private election is better than card check."[13]
.
So the arguments put forward about this issue are really coming from the same idea: that coercion is involved in the forming of a union. One side argues that the coercion would be manifested fromr the union, if Employee Free Choice were to pass. The other side argues that coercion already exists in large measure on the part of employers, and that Employee Free Choice would lower the incidents of coercion by allowing a more rapid, employer-free formation process.
.
I'll ask you, Sean:
.
Who's telling the truth?
.
Which side do you think wields more power to coerce in the current employment environment? Unions or employers?
.
The merits of unions or at-will employment aside, from which side do you think working people suffer the threat of an un-free choice in whether or not to form a union, Sean? -
11
That is exactly what I was concerned about, SG. With an administration in power that supports labor, the cost/benefit approach to intimidation may get skewed toward a more equitable situation, but the moment the country gets dumb enough to veer to the right again, that advantage might disappear.
.
Still I agree. NLRA is better than nothing, by far. -
12
Come to think about it, I would have to say that there really has never been a level playing field where organized labor is concerned.
.
I believe that workers have every right to unionize if they wish. No intimidation, no threats, no firings, nada. I think there should be a minimum size below which unionization might not be possible, but maybe like 10 employees across an entire company*. After all, employers are already orgainized, and this is the leverage they use.
.
*Just an idea, but not really thought out. -
13
SZ
.
A couple of days ago even the Wall Street Journal had to admit that the bit about abolishing the secret vote was bullsh*t. Workers still have the option of calling for a secret vote. The only difference is its workers not employers who decide whether or not to have one.
.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/journal-editorial-page-admits-that-employee-free-choice-doesnt-nix-secret-ballot/ -
14
Stuart,
-
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Employers have completely "won" the current system. Unions won't even try to organize Wal-Mart anymore. In many ways, Wal-Mart is the company the EFCA is most about. I'm not under any kind of illusions about the tactics companies employ to keep out unions. But don't pretend this is anything other than an attempt by the unions to shift the legal advantage to themselves, where tactics like those of the companies will probably be used to try and persuade employees to sign up.
-
Unions came into existence because of horrifying working conditions and management practices. Unfortunately the history of unions isn't one of a bunch of idealists uniting for the common good. It's the history of a bunch of greedy bastards trying to wring every cent possible from management and ownership. Unions regularly oppose legislation that helps workers overall because it would, or might, lead to a less special deal for their members. And that is the only thing unions care about - their current members. Unions leaders mouth platitudes about the working man, but if that working man doesn't belong to their union, they don't like him.
-
And that doesn't even begin to address the corruption issues and closeness to organized crime. I don't like unions as they're currently organized in America. At all. I think they're bad for workers and bad for companies. I came to this conclusion after working in a union loading dock after I graduated from college.
-
I would love for their to be a good, solid union presence in America. However, I would really like it best if that union presence wasn't a net negative for the country like it is now. -
15
To clarify the second paragraph, I'm in favor of unions and workers being a bunch of greedy bastards. I'm not in favor of how they've gone about it. Much like I'm in favor of Wall Street being a bunch of greedy bastards, but I'm not in favor of how they did things over the last six years.
-
16
Sean DeCoursey:
.
Thanks so much for responding; I think I see more clearly your point now.
.
This statement of yours puzzles me a bit, however:
.
...don't pretend this is anything other than an attempt by the unions to shift the legal advantage to themselves...
.
I don't think that anybody is pretending that unions are trying to shift the legal advantage to themselves, I think that's how unions are advertising their support of this bill, actually. I think that union people would tell anybody who would listen to them that this is an attempt to make it legally easier to form unions. Don't you think that this is so? I don't see any dishonesty there.
.
...where tactics like those of the companies will probably be used to try and persuade employees to sign up.
.
This is where the dishonesty or hypocrisy probably lies, then. You're faulting the unions for complaining about how employers do evil, underhanded things to prevent unionization of their workforces, when unions will probably do the same sorts of nefarious deeds in pursuit of their goals (correct me if I'm misstating your position).
.
Of course, this sort of fault lies in either party, no matter who has the comparative legal advantage conferred by the Employee Free Choice act, so it can't be upon the basis of these problems that you could honestly oppose the bill.
.
So the bottom line is that you think that unions are bad for America, and that your opposition isn't based on whether current rules are fair or not, but whether or not the outcome is more unionization of the American workforce.
.
Do I have that right, Sean? -
17
Sorry, that should read: "I don't think that anybody is pretending that unions are not trying to shift the legal advantage to themselves, I think that's how unions are advertising their support of this bill, actually."
-
18
"Unions came into existence because of horrifying working conditions and management practices. Unfortunately the history of unions isn't one of a bunch of idealists uniting for the common good. It's the history of a bunch of greedy bastards trying to wring every cent possible from management and ownership."
.
I know you mean well Sean but in this current climate where the middle class has pretty much been destroyed because profitable companies have put an unequal and unfair emphasis on providing additional dollars to shareholders. As a result of this endless pursuit of rising stock prices we have stagnant wages, jobs shipped overseas, reduced benefits and abused workers. How can you maintain a straight face as you portray workers as greedy bastards? As opposed to what exactly virtuous titans of industry? -
19
I have sometimes felt vaguely guilty for voting against Specter simply because he is a non-horrible Republican, as if my vote would somehow encourage Republicans to behave decently. (And because pulling just the one lever in the booth seems lazy.) So much for that. I'll vote for whoever the Dems run against him.
-
20
From a political standpoint this is just stupid. If Specter is facing a challenge from the right this one vote isn't going to stop it. the GOP has lost its mind and are doubling down on the crap that has already destroyed them as a national party. The only hope Specter has is that the Dems either run someone very weak so that he can appeal to moderate Dems and Independents to support him in a primary or switch parties. If he had supported EFCA Dems would have owed him a big one and he might have squeaked by -- as it is if they run some right wing nut job like Santorum that's going to be one more Democratic Senate seat.
-
21
"Unfortunately the history of unions isn't one of a bunch of idealists uniting for the common good. It's the history of a bunch of greedy bastards trying to wring every cent possible from management and ownership."
As opposed to the greedy bastards wringing every last cent from workers, using legalistic tactics, intimidation and political corruption? Could we have some historical evidence for your rather sweeping generalizations, Sean?
-
22
Dee,
-
You're right. Hence my clarification in post #15. And no, I don't think the correct solution to the situation is to just swing the pendulum the other way. Oh look, things have been advantage: corporations for awhile, time to screw them and make it Advantage: Workers for awhile. That's not a long term solution. It's a recipe for continued dysfunction.
-
Also, to address a couple of your points: wages aren't stagnant, their increases are being eaten up by higher health care costs before workers ever see the raise. Jobs going overseas is a complex issue that varies by industry and more net jobs are created in America as a result of international trade than are lost.
-
Stuart,
-
A lot of the rhetoric about the EFCA I've seen in the media has tried to frame this as some kind of workers' right vs. employers struggle, rather than just coming out and saying "right now the companies are winning all the unionization votes, this bill is an attempt to make the unions win all those votes."
-
I don't think the concept of unions are bad for America. Honestly, I think unions are necessary and are actually good for companies in the long term. However, the current structure of American unions ARE bad for America and bad for workers and bad for companies.
-
Unions suck, and are losing, because they don't have any sort of an endgame. They're all still living under Samuel Gompers' answer to congress. Q: "What do you want Mr. Gompers?" A: "More." Q: "And after that?" A: "More. More. More." Your endgame doesn't have to stay the same for forever, it should change over time, but "More." isn't an endgame. It's a tactic. Unions have never moved beyond that point. And it's hurting everyone. Including workers. -
23
Card Check doesn't make any sense to me. Not one bit. The only rationale I can see for instituting it is so the union kneecap squads can force a bunch of people to sign cards and get their unionization that way. The secret ballot is just more private than signing cards, plain and simple.
.
US News had an Opposing Viewpoints section on this a few weeks ago. The pro-union essay cited an example in which the results of a secret-ballot election (in favor of unionization) were illegally overturned by the employer. Missing from his impassioned argument was any explanation of how the employer couldn't just overturn card results if EFCA had applied to the situation.
.
Both the corporate and the union side aren't exactly innocent. So the best method for choosing unionization should by the ANONYMOUS one to prevent interception from either side. -
24
yoshi
.
If you had clicked on my link you would have seen that the Wall Street Journal editorial board made this admission just last week.
.The bill doesn't remove the secret-ballot option from the National Labor Relations Act
.
The fight over EFCA was never about secret ballots, it was always about businesses wanting to keep more of their profits. This was nothing more than a red herring. -
25
yoshi
.
As for your question about EFCA would have made that situation different, once the cards are signed and turned in its up to the workers to decide on whether to have a vote, secret or not, to unionize or just unionize based on the signatures. For that reason the employer is removed from the scenario basically after the cards are turned in and for that reason they couldn't overturn the vote. As it stands now the employer forces the vote and it has to be on work grounds and the employer can control the vote by obvious or not so obvious means.
- jnsmall DJIA's down over 210 pnts on potential Dubai default. I thought Black Friday was supposed to refer to the shopping...? - 3 hours ago
- jnsmall Thank you, Whirlpool repairman, for fixing my dishwasher in time to host Thanksgiving dinner. Doing all those dishes by hand would've sucked - 2 days ago
- jnsmall Can Bob Casey bridge the abortion divide in the Senate? http://tiny.cc/FPuvj - 3 days ago
Most Popular »
- UPDATE: Guess Who Came To Dinner?
- Time to panic again! Or, on second thought ...
- Blizzard: 'Who Knows' When Diablo III Will Ship
- Happy Thanksgiving From The AppleGeeks
- Checkout Line Conundrums: Should You Get the Extended Warranty? What about the Store's Credit Card?
- A Self-Inflicted Expectation Gap
- FLO TV Personal TV: Being a Couch Potato Has Never Been Easier
- Gleeks and Shrieks: Fox Unveils Midseason, Glee Gone Until April
- The Six Greatest Fantasy Novels of All Time
- Fantastic Mr. Fox: Wes Anderson Talks Puppetry Perfection
- The 00's: A Decade from Hell
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- In Italy, A Sex Scandal to Rival Berlusconi's
- Obama's First Year Policies Need Time to Settle In
- How to Get Smarter, One Breath at a Time
- A Brief History of Black Friday
- Workers of the World vs. China Inc.
- The Gospel of Glee: Is It Anti-Christian?
- Satyam Computer Fraud Grows to $2.5 Billion
- A Brief History of Pie
Quotes of the Day »
RSS