THE HILL
 

Key Dems confident card-check will pass

By Kevin Bogardus - 10/01/09 05:11 AM ET

A key Senate negotiator trying to advance a contentious union-organizing bill said a modified version could pass the upper chamber this year, despite his reservations with the changes.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) is one of a half-dozen senators trying to craft a compromise on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which if passed would make union organizing much easier. The labor movement considers the measure one of its top legislative priorities this Congress, but business associations have mounted an all-out lobbying offensive against the bill.

In an interview with The Hill, Brown said he’s not happy with some of the changes, but that he’s working hard to lobby his Democratic colleagues — and even a few Republicans — to accept the compromise. He said he is not sure if the new version would have the 60 Senate votes necessary to beat back a filibuster.

“I don’t know,” Brown said. “It’s not clear to me that we have everybody’s vote yet.”

But Brown expressed confidence that Congress will at some point move the union bill — if not this year, then next — saying senators have made progress on negotiating a new version of the bill.

“I think this is going to happen at some point,” Brown said. “There is a decent chance it will happen this year.”

The Democrats’ lead negotiator, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), has been more hopeful than Brown of late on the bill’s chances. In September, Harkin, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, told a labor rally that he worked out a deal on the bill in July. But he could not move it without Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who was too ill to vote at the time and in August succumbed to terminal brain cancer.

Now that Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) has taken the late Kennedy’s seat, Senate Democrats have 60 members in their conference and Harkin is sounding positive again about the bill.

“Hopefully we’re going to get the bill through sometime this fall, now that we hopefully have the 60 votes,” Harkin said on the “Bill Press Radio Show” Tuesday.

A spokesman for Kirk confirmed that the newly appointed senator plans to co-sponsor the pro-union bill and would vote for it on the Senate floor.

Even with Kirk’s support, passage has a tough road ahead. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) has come out against the bill and other centrist Democrats have distanced themselves from the legislation. Add in the uncertainty over Sen. Robert Byrd’s (D-W.Va.) health and the bill’s chances of becoming law remain up in the air.

Democrats like Brown have tried to shore up support for the bill by working out a compromise. Brown said each of the six negotiators has been assigned senators to check up on to see if they will vote for the bill.

“The six of us are talking to different people. The most difficult of the 60 votes have not been assigned to me,” Brown said.

Considering some Democrats’ wavering in supporting the bill, Republican votes may be needed. Brown said he has talked to his Ohioan colleague, Sen. George Voinovich (R), a centrist who is retiring after the 2010 election, about supporting the legislation. Voinovich voted against advancing the card-check bill in the 110th Congress and has vowed to do the same if it comes up again.


“I think he’s not likely, but we keep trying,” Brown said.

Under discussion on a compromise is removing a provision that would allow workers to bypass secret-ballot elections when forming unions if a majority sign authorization cards stating their intention to organize. The card-check provision would eliminate management’s right to call for a secret-ballot election, which businesses have lobbied against heavily.

“It has been pretty clear that it is very hard with card-check to get 60 votes,” Brown said. The senator, however, said he was “not thrilled” with changes made to the legislation.

“I liked the bill the way it was. I know much of business is going to hate any bill,” Brown said.

Brown said much of the discussions are through informal talks on the Senate floor and the negotiators have not had a formal meeting since before the August recess.

Source:
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/61049-sen-brown-decent-chance-for-a-card-check-deal-to-pass

Comments (38)

When I was in college and working part time, I got muscled by a union recruiter into joining - join or you will be very unpopular with your fellow workers he hinted. So Harkin and Brown want to eliminate the secret ballot so union muscle can be applied out in the open. You Democrats who are owned by the union bosses make me ill.BY Jimmy Knuckles on 10/01/2009 at 08:22
Jimmy,Less than 8% of workers belong to a Union. Union muscle???BY Ron House on 10/01/2009 at 10:17
@Ron: What's your point? It makes no difference what the percentage of Union intrusion is. Even if there was only one Union-recruiting thug out there, that doesn't mean he may not have approached me. (or in this case Jimmy).Between Health Care, Cap and Trade, and this insidious EFCA…small business will be effectively squelched in this country. I am not going to launch into a diatribe on any of these, I have made many an analysis on each. Suffice it to say, anyone that has a signature on any one of these 3 Bills, will find themselves fighting for their lives to get re-elected. The Unions line the pockets of the DNC and various candidates (although they do so illegally, thru a loophole that is denied everyone else). The Dems support the EFCA solely on the basis of 'payback', not whether it is good or bad for this country; only if it is good for them. Either the days of corrupt governance will start coming to an end in 2010, or the Liberals will succeed in their take-over of this country and the Conservatives will leave, letting them stew in their own juices. Conservatives work. Liberals just sit around and try to figure out how to legislate the production and the product. What will they do when there is no one left to support them?BY Savant Noir on 10/01/2009 at 10:52
Employees will still have a choice whether they want card check recognition or a secret ballot election. EFCA would only take the decision out of the hands of the employer. Some states like Illinois already have a majority card check recognition process for public employees. It is simple and easy for employees to form a union without the long drawn out anti-union campaign. I have not seen any problems with it. Under current federal labor law, employers through their hired anti-union consultants routinely threaten, coerce and even fire employees just because they want to have a voice, a vote and a contract the spells out their wages, benefits and working conditions. Employers wouldn't think of doing business without contracts spelling out the rights of the parties involved. Why shouldn't employees who spend a third of their life in the workplace have the same right. It only makes good sense. Keeping workers from forming a union is a multi-billion dollar industry, that is the real reason business is against the Employee Free Choice Act. If our state and national election were run the same way we all would be appauled.BY Ted Sautter on 10/01/2009 at 11:13
It seems to me that it should be the workers that are denied a Union that make the complaints about thugs. No I don't mean Union thugs, I mean the ones that are hired by companies to keep a Union out. Workers are threatened in most Union organizing campaigns with ultimate sacrifice, loss of their job. Even though its illegal for an employer to do that, its still done. There is no monetary penalty to an employer for doing this. EFCA will change that, but you worn't here the right wing talking about that part of the new law. Why anyone would not stand up for Democracy in the work place is beyond me. Are we still in the plantation mindset, where we do what ever the boss wants with no legal recourse. This country need labor law reform, its decades behind most industrialized countries in the area of Labor Law. I applaud any legislator that has the courage to stand up for workers and not the greedy corporations. How far does our standard of living need to regress before we demand changes?BY Keith Grover on 10/01/2009 at 11:22
@Ted and Keith: You both seem rather naive. EFCA is neither "free", nor does it leave much "choice". You argument about thugs to keep Unions out is absurd. No employee has the resources to combat the tactics used by Unions. Further, there is a monetary cost attached to this, the cost of doing business as mandated by Federal Arbitration, whom will set in place the wages, benefits, etc etc…that is uncontestable for 3 years. If it were not for the politicizing of Unions, these archaic institutions would have been extinct by now. The premise for their existence has long been removed. Now they are nothing more then a bane around the economic neck of this country. Supporting the Unions is just putting money in you favorite candidates pocket, nothing more. (not to mention how Unions have squandered all their Union dues on failed investments, but, they do have their golf courses that they enjoy!). It amazes me how people for stand up for 'laborers", yet have nothing to say for the white collar worker. A lug nut twister from GM was on TV complaining that he ONLY makes about 75k per year. Because he is in the Union, his job is virtually protected, irrespective of performance. The legacy debt the Unions have imposed on GM is tantamount to their failure. A person with a Master's degree starting off in their Engineering Dept will have a wage of apprx 45k/yr. His job is secured SOLEY by his performance. Everyone's job (non-Union) is secured by their performance. So is their wages. No business wants to lose a good employee. NO business wants to be forced to pay slackers either. Unions produce slackers. (pretty much like Liberals produce 'gimme-people') Your thinking demonstrates just how well the "dumbing down of America" has taken root. It has eroded all sense of personal responsibility and the maturation processes that lead to a self-deterministic life.BY Savant Noir on 10/01/2009 at 12:26
Another fool's errand by the Dems. Voters will ask why, when employment was at 10%, did you do everything possible to hinder small business, and send production overseas? All to satisfy a small slice of America that is truly a vestige of our pre-infomation-age past (and is mostly now important for the millions that they pour into Democrat coffers.)BY BigMac on 10/01/2009 at 13:10
Savant Noir - perfect synopsis. My mom works for Walmart, she works hard, loves her job, and has better benefits than anywhere else she has ever worked. What she doesn't love is the harassment she gets from union recruiters/organizers who have Walmart on their radar screen. Somehow they even got her home address and have sent her letters and pamphlets "informing" her about how horrible Walmart treats its employees and how great life would be under their union. The Teamsters have been particulary aggressive in their efforts. Fortunately my dad is a member of a union and communicates his dissatisfaction with "his" union, their high dues, and volumes of rules to my mom and she doesn't buy into their propaganda. Ironically my mom and dad are both covered by my mom's Walmart health insurance.BY Rob on 10/01/2009 at 13:13
@ROB. Thanks. I made a subsequent post, but they must have censored it, for it never appeared. But I did try and point out to these Liberals the obvious: "if you look at what used to be the richest States in the country, they are all Democrat states. Now they are all either bankrupt, or on the verge of bankruptcy". It amazes me to no end how Liberals are so cathected to their ideologies, that they fail to see the evidence of their failed policies continually manifested. As a business owner, my response to California (and the Unions) is: I don't need YOU…you need ME. I am moving my companies out of California, and if the Unions come to my door, I will shut down the business. Simple. So will 1,000's of other businesses.BY Savant Noir on 10/01/2009 at 13:45
Keith, What is this new concept you just invented? Democracy in the work place is it? That is absurd! The only democratic right at stake here is the one of property rights — ownership. When someone start a business with her resources, what moral obligations does she have to give in to your demands about how things should operate? I do not argue against safety, health, and welfare regulations. Of course the at-large society can ensure those rights for workers. But comparing most modern employers to plantation owners is in so many way ridiculous, that it's pointless to even list them. Indeed, in most union-heavy states these days, many residents would be happy to work on plantations, as the unions have done such a marvelous job of destroying businesses. Anyone seen GM lately? I am not wholly committed to the rights of owners over employees. Nevertheless, I seriously doubt if Congress will strike better balances than the ones in existence already. Plantations or not, Congress should keep its cotton-picking hands off employers!BY DCMAC on 10/01/2009 at 13:48

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.