Labor

Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) said today that a compromise on card-check legislation is close.

The "prospects are pretty good," Specter said, according to the AP, adding that legislators were "hard at work trying to find some way to find an answer." Specter wouldn't provide details on what a compromise might entail.

Last week, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the lead Senate sponsor of the bill, suggested a compromise was in the works.

"Compromises are going to be made," Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told Bloomberg News. "It [the bill] probably won't be card-check because too many people are opposed to it now."

Possible components of a compromise bill include dropping the contentious "card check" portion of the act and instead holding a secret ballot election sooner after a union asks for it. Non-binding mediation could be substituted for EFCA's binding government arbitration.

Specter, as the Senate's 60th Democrat (if Franken is seated) will be a (the?) key vote on any deal modifying the legislation.

A group of investors who manage $372 billion in assets have called upon Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

In a letter Monday to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), the sponsors of the legislation, the coalition of investment groups from the United States and abroad endorsed EFCA, which would make union organizing much easier for workers if passed.

"As investors, we believe constructive labor relations are essential for improving productivity, efficiency and workplace safety," said Steven Heim, an executive with Boston Common Asset Management, in a statement. "We believe the proposed legislation would help appropriately rebalance labor-management relations and better protect workers if they face unlawful conduct by employers when exercising their workplace rights."

The endorsement was touted by labor officials as a sign that the union bill would help improve the economy.

"Allowing workers to freely form unions is essential to both increasing middle-class purchasing power and producing a highly-skilled workforce to promote future economic growth," said Kimberly Freeman, acting executive director of American Rights at Work. "Unfortunately, under the current labor law system, illegal firings, anti-union threats, and employer intimidation keep workers from exercising their choice on joining a union. By rectifying these flaws, the Employee Free Choice Act will stimulate the economy by allowing workers to bargain, not borrow their way into the middle class." Read more...

George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate, made quite a splash last year when he came out against the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). Now in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Thursday, McGovern doubles down on that opposition.

First, the former South Dakota senator took issue with EFCA's provision that would allow workers to form unions if a majority of them signed petition cards stating their intention to organize, bypassing secret ballot elections, which is often called "card-check." Now in his latest op-ed, McGovern is opposing another provision of the bill: the arbitration measure that would have the federal government appoint a mediator to resolve stalled contract negotiations between unions and management.

"A federally appointed arbitrator cannot be expected to understand the nuances specific to each business dispute, the competitive market position of the business, or the plethora of other factors unique to each case. Yet fundamental decisions on wages and benefit costs, rules for promotions, or even rules for exiting an unprofitable line of business could fall to federal arbitrators under EFCA," McGovern writes.

McGovern's line of argument against the provision runs awfully similar to what the business community has said about the arbitration piece of the bill, which has delighted industry lobbyists. At a breakfast meeting for members of the National Association of Manufacturers, former Michigan Gov. John Engler (R), president and CEO of the trade group, read out excerpts of McGovern's op-ed to the gathering. Read more...

This story from Kevin Bogardus and this post from Mike have major consequences:

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) announced Tuesday he will not vote for cloture on card-check, giving an apparent death blow to the most important congressional issue to organized labor.

It is worth noting, of course, that Specter is facing another primary challenge from Former Rep. Pat Toomey. Many political observers will say Specter's announcement is politically motivated even though Specter dismissed that criticized during the floor statement.

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

You could almost see this coming. After Gallup releases a poll this morning saying that a majority of Americans would support a law that would make it easier for workers to unionize (read: EFCA), Rasmussen releases a poll that says a majority think secret ballot voting is a fair way to form a union.

Hmmm.

In the Rasmussen poll, 61 percent answered "yes" to the question: "If enough workers express interest in forming a union, a secret ballot is held. Is it fair to require a secret ballot to determine if workers want to form a union?" Eighteen percent said "no" and 22 percent were unsure.

OK, I can see how some might criticize that question as not giving enough context so maybe it doesn't necessarily refute the Gallup poll. But then there's this question: "Should Congress change the law to make it easier for workers to form or join a labor union?"

That is almost the same question Gallup asked. Read more...

This is undoubtedly going to make unions and the pro-EFCA crowd happy. Gallup released a poll this morning that found a majority of Americans approve of a new law making joining a union easier.

Fifty-three percent would support such a measure, while 39 percent would oppose it.



Perhaps predictably, there is a sharp partisan divide on the issue as seven in 10 Democrats support such a measure while six in 10 Republicans would oppose one. A majority of independents Read more...

The controversial Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to unionize, will come to a vote if and when Minnesota Democrat Al Franken arrives in the Senate this spring, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Wednesday.

Franken currently leads incumbent Republican Norm Coleman by 225 votes in the contest

Some politicians get a break from their hometown papers, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) isn't so lucky on the Columbia trade deal. In this mornings editorial the San Francisco Chronicle accused Pelosi of pandering to labor groups by holding up the trade pact. The paper lists a possible recession and improved relations with Latin America as reasons Pelosi should support the free trade agreement.

From the editorial:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is playing politics by pandering to free-trade foes. Instead of accepting the usual fast-track process of voting up or down on the treaty within 90 days, she plans to rip up these rules and sidetrack the matter.

It's not hard to guess why. She's clearing the field of a painful Democratic dilemma: backing wider trade that unions fear will threaten their jobs. Remember the contorted debate on the eve of the Ohio primary between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton over who was more hard-line in opposing the NAFTA trade treaty with Mexico?

With the Pennsylvania primary coming on April 22, Pelosi would like to remove any chance of an awkward rerun, even if the Colombia pact is far smaller than the NAFTA package. It must be an awkward talk that Pelosi has with herself on free trade: She's from an export-heavy region with ports, open-door universities, worldwide businesses and a diverse population.

The liberal bloggers keep up recent criticism of the Bush administration's memo on allowing for harsher interrogations while revisiting the rationale for the Iraq War. Logan Murphy points to a recent law professor's argument that the memo is more evidence that the White House broke the law and perhaps committed an "impeachable crime." John Amato takes issue with Doug Feith's statement that going into Iraq wasn't retaliation for 9/11. He reminds readers of the way Feith, a former Pentagon official, and other Bush administration officials talked about 9/11 and Saddam Hussein together in the run-up to the invasion.