Jan 16th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Card Check Delay?
I’ve read a bunch of talk about the idea that Barack Obama and/or congressional Democrats may or may not be postponing or delaying or dropping their support for the Employee Free Choice Act. I think this is implicit in Marc Ambinder’s reporting on the subject, but that whole framing seems off. It’s a pretty simple up-or-down issue, and it’s a question of whether or not the Democrats have the votes to invoke cloture. It’s not as if they do have the votes but then are perversely delaying action. It’s a question of votes—it’s not clear that the votes are there, and nobody’s interested in bringing it up to the floor just for fun.
55 Responses to “Card Check Delay?”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Defense Budget
Demographics
Denmark
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 16th, 2009 at 11:51 am
If you are reading tea leaves then Peter Orszag put health care ahead of energy on the Obama agenda in some recent comments. My guess is any and all tough votes will be pushed behind health care in the legislation hopper.
January 16th, 2009 at 11:57 am
One reason to delay the thing, at least for a while, is to make sure there are enough practical measures in place to allow it to work. Specifically, you’re going to have a lot workers becoming unionized, which means according to the text of the Act that you need mediators and arbitrators with expertise in collective bargaining ready to get to work. Sadly, most of the neutrals with that skill set are either retired or close to retirement. Even worse is in the area of interest arbitration, which was much more part of the arbitrator’s repertoire 30 years ago than it is today. Essentially you’re going to have to roll out a lot of training for career neutrals to make sure that they are capable of helping the parties produce sound, unbiased collective bargaining agreements.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
I don’t see how the Democrats can avoid disaster in 2010 if they pass this. The response being the chambers of commerce across the country has been vehement and rightly so.
The Republicans can just get elected in a bunch of moderate districts by screaming communism.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Stephen Miles = Concern troll
January 16th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Genuis political advice, Mr. Myles.
Perhaps they can put out the message “This election is a referendum on socialism.”
That’ll work.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
And also too, I do not wish to be thrown into a briar patch.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
“The Republicans can just get elected in a bunch of moderate districts by screaming communism.”
Because they DEFINITELY didn’t try to do exactly that in this election, right? If only they had talked *more* about socialism and redistributing wealth we might be looking at President McCain and a Republican Senate! Hopefully they’ve learned their lessons.
As #6 said: Pleeeease don’t throw us into that briar patch.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Stephen Myles — I very much doubt that. For starters, many of the competitive states in 2010 are highly union-friendly: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Nevada, for starters. Secondly, most of the arguments currently being used against it are misleading and easily identified as such. I don’t know how it has anything to do with “communism,” for instance.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“I don’t know how it has anything to do with “communism,” for instance.”
It’s easy. Any policy which has the effect of the lower and middle class getting more money at the expense of the very rich is socialist, because any redistribution of wealth by any means is socialist. And socialism = communism because most people don’t know the difference and they both have negative connotations.
I recommend Myles make this argument as often and as loudly as possible. It should play great trying to hold Voinovich’s and Specter’s seats.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
The Administration and/or the leadership may be waiting for Al Franken to get seated, to get that 60th vote.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Matt: It’s a question of votes—it’s not clear that the votes are there, and nobody’s interested in bringing it up to the floor just for fun.
Greg Abbott: The Administration and/or the leadership may be waiting for Al Franken to get seated, to get that 60th vote.
Exactly. EFCA, for all its merits, does not have the advantage of good framing for Democrats. Most people don’t know enough about policy to get past the surface arguments–a person may support the right to unionize, but he might not like the idea of losing “secret ballot elections,” and unless he’s been through it he probably doesn’t realize what a sham NLRB “elections” are.
This isn’t something like S-CHIP where they can risk failure bringing up the bill because it will be a useful political bludgeon to use against its opponents. EFCA seems like it’s taking a safeguard away from workers, and news coverage of the issue surely isn’t going to correct that perception in any meaningful way, so quick and smooth passage is what Reid’s looking for.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
This reminds me of one of the very first Doonesbury comic strips with Zonker, in the fall of 1971.
B.D.: Zonker! Are you smoking the dreaded killer marijuana in my huddle!?
Zonker: Sure, Cap’n, want some?
B.D. Are you crazy?! Do you know what that evil weed leads to? Do you?
(Pause)
COMMUNISM!
January 16th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Well, Arlen Specter is probably pretty unlikely to support this. The local Republicans have essentially vowed to try their best to kick Specter out in the primaries if she supports big labour. On the flip side, Specter’s got the wrath of the unions to contend with if the vote is no.
I think in a red state, angry Republicans and angry chamber of commerce is gonna be a bit harder to handle than angry labour. Especially if you are talking about primaries.
January 16th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
LOL–Stephen Myles thinks Pennsylvania is a red state!
January 16th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I would think it might make more sense to wait till after the midterms to pass card check. Especially because there’s a very good chance Dems will have over 60 votes in the Senate after 2011. Right now, I’d kind of expect them to pick up Missouri, Ohio and maybe New Hampshire, which would get them to 63. If they can pick off even a couple other seats from Florida, Kentucky, NC, and Kansas (if Sebelius runs), that would get them to 65 seats.
January 16th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
I think in a red state, angry Republicans and angry chamber of commerce is gonna be a bit harder to handle than angry labour. Especially if you are talking about primaries.
I guess, but that doesn’t have anything to do with Pennsylvania.
Specter’s between a rock and hard place, for sure, but I think he knows he’s getting a primary challenge no matter what. He can eke out the primary against the rightwing–he did it in 2004, after all–but he can’t win the general without union support. And given that he supported EFCA in 2007, I think he’s probably a safe bet.
Blanche Lincoln is the biggest question mark. She also supported it in 2007, but is up for re-election in 2010 and has sounded ambivalent lately.
I wonder if Lisa Murkowski is a potential get. Alaska is a labor-friendly state (Ted Stevens was, at times, a good vote on the issue), and it could even be a potential primary issue for Sarah Palin given that the First Dude’s union.
January 16th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I would think it might make more sense to wait till after the midterms to pass card check. Especially because there’s a very good chance Dems will have over 60 votes in the Senate after 2011.
Um, no. Too much can happen in two years to wait. Schumer’s counting the votes and if he gets to 60 they should pass it.
January 16th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Too much can happen in two years to wait.
Obviously because, the public at large opposed this card check business? i.e., screw what the people want, Democrats are gonna pass this anyway because they just know better than Americans at large!
What piteous fools.
January 16th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
I just don’t see how Blanche Lincoln can hope to remain on the Republican ticket if she supports this.
January 16th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
["]Too much can happen in two years to wait.["]
Obviously because, the public at large opposed this card check business? i.e., screw what the people want, Democrats are gonna pass this anyway because they just know better than Americans at large!
Um, no. Because Republicans are almost universally opposed and the Democratic majority could very well shrink after the mid-term elections. Once Al Franken is seated the Democrats will have 59 senators. That’s one vote shy of cloture, and there’s at least one Republican who’s voted for it in the past. You don’t wait to pass legislation in anticipation of a greater consensus that might never materialize.
As far as what the American people want: we want the Democratic congress to enact Democratic legislation. That’s what we voted for and that’s what EFCA is.
January 16th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
No, dumbass, did the public also vote for a Republican majority to enact the Patriot Act?
As far as what the American people want: we want the Democratic congress to enact Democratic legislation. That’s what we voted for and that’s what EFCA is.
Sure they voted for a Dem majority, but they sure don’t endorse the stupidly named EFCA, if you have been reading the polls. Americans overwhelming reject the passage of EFCA. Just because they voted for a certain political party does not indicate that they intend to give it a carte blanche to pass whatever dumbass laws they want; it’s called restraint. Hitler would be a good example. (even though he didn’t get a majority of votes, but my point stands)
Or are liberals too stupid to be numerically literate? Oh right, sorry me, didn’t realise.
January 16th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
And by the way, if the Dem majority shrinks, it would indicate that Americans support Dem legislation less, not more, and thus any attempt to just throw public opinion under the bus right now and pass this bullshit legislation on the get-go while the Dems still have a majority is frankly, crassly opportunistic and a power grab.
If this can stand up to test in the daylight, why not wait? A sound idea has never been afraid of exposure to time and public scrutiny. Oh I forgot, no, champagne socialists don’t want public scrutiny do they now?
January 16th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
“Americans overwhelming reject the passage of EFCA.”
While I highly doubt Americans have much of an opinion on it in general since they probably have no idea what it does, what opinion they do have is in large part due to the many, many millions already spent by Chambers of Commerce and third-party groups close to WalMart etc in advertising specifically to make the EFCA sound bad. So, your only point is that lots of one-sided advertising works. No shit.
Anyway, Specter knows he can’t vote for cloture in 2007 and not this year when it matters and have any chance of keeping his seat (in a very much not red state, in case you missed it Stephen). It’ll be passed sometime this summer or fall.
“I just don’t see how Blanche Lincoln can hope to remain on the Republican ticket if she supports this.”
I know accuracy and knowledge aren’t your strong points, but Blanche isn’t a Republican. Her wavering is because she’s from Arkansas (which is a red state), the home of WalMart. Thus she’s under intense lobbying, because WalMart wouldn’t make as much money if their employees got any benefits at all or made enough so they didn’t have to be on food stamps with a full-time job.
January 16th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
“And by the way, if the Dem majority shrinks, it would indicate that Americans support Dem legislation less, not more”
This is completely false. If the Dem majority shrinks, it will be virtually entirely because the economy really sucks in 2010 or 2012. Americans don’t have any opinion on 90% of legislation, they just reward the party in power when things go well in the country and vice versa.
That’s why the Republicans are so gung-ho about stopping this specific piece of legislation. They know if lower and middle classes get paid more and get better benefits with Democrats in power, then Democrats are much more likely to remain in power.
January 16th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Mr. Myles you make no sense. EFCA is not the kind of unique and sweeping legislation that the Patriot Act is, and the uniquely urgent circumstances enabling the Patriot Act’s passage do not exist with EFCA. Did America elect Republicans to enact the Patriot Act? No; it wasn’t debated in the 2000 campaign. But Republicans didn’t exactly suffer for it at the polls in 2002 or 2004, did they?
While Democrats did not specifically campaign on EFCA, it is the kind of labor-friendly legislation you’d expect from the Democratic party. Most house Dems and every senate Dem had previously voted in favor of it. If the Republicans wanted to campaign against it, they could have. But they didn’t, and the American people made their choice. We promoted two of those senate Democrats to the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, and added more Democrats to both houses of Congress.
If some people are opposed to EFCA, tough titty. They put people who made no secret of their intention to pass it in a strong position to do just that. I have no idea what Hitler has to do with any of that.
January 16th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
to . . . pass this bullshit legislation on the get-go while the Dems still have a majority is frankly, crassly opportunistic and a power grab.
This is the pinnacle of dumbfuckery.
I can see the headlines now: “Duly Elected Legislators Pass Legislation: Nation Shocked”
January 16th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Voting against Wal-Mart in Arkansas is like voting against tobacco in N.C. or voting against coal in W.V. It’s just fucking stupid.
I mean, I would be the first to urge Wal-Mart to move out of Arkansas to a more conservative state is some dipshit senators votes to screw the biggest employer in her state. If you want to screw Wal-Mart in Arkansas, go ahead; nobody ain’t ever told you Wal-Mart gotta be in Arkansas.
January 16th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
I think Wal-Mart should make it loud and clear; you either want the Wal-Mart HQ in Arkansas, or you don’t like Wal-Mart in which case it should find another state.
January 16th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
“Voting against Wal-Mart in Arkansas is like voting against tobacco in N.C. or voting against coal in W.V. It’s just fucking stupid.”
Which is why a Democrat would waver on the bill in the first place. If there were 61 votes available I’m sure she’d be given a free pass, but there probably aren’t unless Voinovich has a sudden conscience attack.
“I mean, I would be the first to urge Wal-Mart to move out of Arkansas to a more conservative state is some dipshit senators votes to screw the biggest employer in her state.”
You do, of course, realize that the EFCA would certainly help considerably more Wal-Mart employees, and people in Arkansas, than it would hurt. Perhaps she goes with the decision that does the most overall good for her state rather than the decision that helps the executives and lobbyists of a corporation in her state. “Liking Wal-Mart” doesn’t necessarily correspond to “voting for Wal-Mart’s employees to remain at the poverty line so executives get bigger bonuses”, you know.
Anyway, I highly doubt she would find threats of moving a massive corporate headquarters to Mississippi after a bill’s already passed just to spite her very credible. In no plausible scenario would this happen. It’s silly scare tactics and I’m quite sure Rahm can overcome that.
January 16th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I’m curious, Stephen. Have you ever had any experience at all in actual business work? Do you know how difficult it would be to move the entire Wal-Mart headquarters to, say, Bumblefark, TN? It’s not the kind of thing where you can just quit your job and move to a new state and be working five days later. On top of having to get matching tax breaks to those in AR (which are very generous), Wal-Mart would also more broadly have to give up its entire bought-and-paid for AR channels to the Congress.
More likely any retaliation will be pretty limited, to doing their utmost to screw over Lincoln.
January 16th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
PS, Mr. Myles:
Since you seem confident that Americans are generally averse to unions, you may want to check out these Gallup findings. Public support of unions has never dropped below 55%.
January 16th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
While we are talking about polls, shall we talk about the fact that even union members don’t support card check? cite
Question 13: I’m going to describe two ways that workers might be asked to decide if they want to become part of a union and ask you which of the two ways is most fair. In the first way, a union organizer would ask workers to sign their name on a card if they wanted to be part of a union. The worker would sign his or her name on the card if he or she wanted a union, or the worker would tell the union organizer he or she would not sign the card if he or she did not want a union. In the second way, the government would hold an election in the workplace where every worker would get to vote by secret ballot whether he or she wanted a union. Which way is more fair?
53% said more fair.
14. Currently, the government is responsible for holding secret-ballot elections for workers who are deciding whether to form a union, and for making sure workers can cast their votes in a fair and impartial manner. Do you agree or disagree that the current secret-ballot process is fair?
71% said Agree
15. Do you agree or disagree that stronger laws are needed to protect the existing secret-ballot election process and to make sure workers can make their decisions about union membership in private, without the union, their employer or anyone else knowing how they vote?
63% Agree
17. Should Congress keep the existing secret-ballot election process for union membership, or should Congress replace it with another process that is less private?
78% said keep the existing secret-ballot.
Please note that this is a survey of people who are *already in unions*.
January 16th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Sebastian, not only do those questions not reflect the reality of the application of current law, but 93% of the people surveyed didn’t experience the organization drive (page 2 of your link, question 3). Their responses to election related questions are no more insightful than anyone else’s.
January 16th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Stephen: do you not believe in the trustee model of representation? Because that’s what our version of democracy has been designed for and based on. The majority of the public also supported President Bush’s decision to go into Iraq; that doesn’t mean that going into Iraq was a good idea.
January 16th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I should mention that by “our version of democracy” I mean “America’s version of democracy.”
January 16th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
mark f says: “Sebastian, not only do those questions not reflect the reality of the application of current law, but 93% of the people surveyed didn’t experience the organization drive (page 2 of your link, question 3). Their responses to election related questions are no more insightful than anyone else’s.”
Yglesias echoed that opinion in a couple other posts earlier. The idea you are putting forth is that the only opinion that matters on this issue is the opinion of workers who have already been through a difficult organization drive.
So polls reflecting the majority of Americans don’t count. Polls reflecting the majority of union members don’t count. The only people who count are the people who tried to unionize via secret ballot and failed to convince a majority to join. Those people now want to force the vote to be public to get the unionization that they could get when the vote was private.
You think that Americans are too ignorant to understand this bill? The only advantage to forcing a union election to be public after it failed as a secret ballot is so the pro-union workers can coerce other workers into signing up. This is clear to everyone who follows EFCA, and is the reason why it is so unpopular. Not because there is some conspiracy of corporate-funded one sided publicity, but because there is NO VALID REASON to get rid of secret ballot except to allow coercion!
January 16th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Matthew: the EFCA doesn’t get rid of the secret ballot.
January 16th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Jaime – The list of people who have signed up for the union is available to the organizers, so that they can continue to pressure workers who haven’t signed up yet. That is equivalent to getting rid of the secret ballot, in that it invites coercion from the pro-union workers.
To be fair, I would appreciate it if someone explained to me how I misunderstood EFCA. I have certainly been wrong before, and will happily change my views on this topic if someone can persuade me that EFCA doesn’t encourage pro-union workers to coerce anti-union workers into signing up for the union. I keep hearing that the anti-EFCA people just don’t understand. Maybe you are right! So teach me. Don’t just make a snide comment and provide a link to someone else’s work. Don’t just say that the corporate brainwashing squads have gotten to me and write me off. I would like to be pro-union, but this bill seems absurd.
Why is EFCA more fair than a secret ballot?
January 16th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
The Conservatards are out in full force today!
You fuckers lost. Elections have consequences.
January 16th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
“Elections have consequences.”
If you really believed that then you wouldn’t be pushing EFCA. EFCA is a tool used to override a failed union organizing election. Did you mean your comment to be ironic?
January 16th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Matthew in Austin:
The idea you are putting forth is that the only opinion that matters on this issue is the opinion of workers who have already been through a difficult organization drive.
I did not say the workers polled didn’t matter. I said that the vast majority of the workers polled had no particular experience that would give them special insight. Yet Sebastian presented the poll as if they did.
It’s relevant to point out that 93% of them have never experienced the certification process because they may not be aware of how difficult it is in practice, and the wording of the questions makes NLRB elections sound like they occur under ideal and free democratic conditions.
Why is EFCA more fair than a secret ballot?
Employers know who votes. Abstaining is equal to voting no union. There is no secret ballot.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Thanks mark f. And despite soullite’s assumptions to the contrary, I supported Obama and support the right to unionize.
So I think your point is that when the employer knows who votes, and abstaining is equal to voting no union, that gives the employer the ability to coerce people not to show up to vote. Thanks for the explanation – that does make sense.
But I still think a better solution would be to reform the certification process rather than implement card check. An alternative solution that seems more fair would be a mandatory secret ballot vote, to remove the possibility of abstaining and employers coercing workers to abstain. Or not counting abstentions as a vote for no union assuming a quorum of votes (like 66% of workers) is met. Or some other mechanism to eliminate employer advantage while still maintaining democratic secret ballot voting.
I think you guys underestimate the symbolic importance of secret ballot to Americans. Card Check seems banana republic to me. I am not in a union (I am in IT) but lots of my extended family is union and they don’t like it either. I understand it a little better know thanks to mark f, but I still think it is a mistake.
January 17th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Matthew, union elections aren’t ‘elections’. I missed the part of the 2008 election where John McCain and several armed goons got to sit me down an hour before I voted and threaten to jail me or kick me out of the country if I didn’t vote for him. Thats what employers get to do right now, when they can threaten to fire you and ruin your life if you dare vote for unionization.
That’s not an election. That’s a stalinist power play.
January 17th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Matthew, STFU you corporate hack. You don’t think anything, you just say what they pay you to say on here.
Go back to sucking the corporate dick and stop polluting the internet with your scumbaggery.
January 17th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
soullite – I completely accept that your description of management’s actions during unionization drives does indeed happen sometimes. But wouldn’t card check make that scenario worse, not better? In you scenario, management thugs rough up a worker before he votes to make him scared to vote pro-union. But what EFCA does is puts the worker’s name on a public list of pro-union workers, a list that keeps growing until it hits 50%. It could take months for the list to hit 50%, and during those months management would know everyone who had signed up so far. Wouldn’t that give management far greater opportunity for their “stalinist power plays”?
Again, how is this new proposed system better than the old way? markf and soullite have both pointed out very valid flaws in the old system, but no one has explained why EFCA is better. I still think a reform of the existing system is better than EFCA. Both politically for Democrats and realistically for workers.
Soullite, as for your second comment, I had just previously said “Don’t just say that the corporate brainwashing squads have gotten to me” so I honestly can’t tell if you are being ironic or not again. That is twice now.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:45 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:25 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 19th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Great to see the comments from idiot liberals who think Card Check, bills of attainder, and rampant leftism from this congress and our idiot President are going to be embraced by the voters.
Thanks for living down to my expectations, once again.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:15 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:11 am
Incredible site! viagra