Matt Yglesias

33 Responses to “Centrist Dems Loving Opportunity to Block EFCA, Pretending to Be Upset”

1. Anon21 Says:
   February 18th, 2009 at 11:43 am

   Sorry, maybe I’m missing something, but under what scenario is anyone in the House going to be the pivotal vote in blocking EFCA, or indeed, have any chance of blocking it at all? The Democrats have a 77-seat edge in the House; if they couldn’t pass this bill, which is the priority for one of the most important Democratic constituencies, that would be a leadership failure of catastrophic proportions.

   On the Senate side, on the other hand, “moderate” Democrats really do have a chance to derail this thing, the leading candidate for such a role being Blanche Lincoln, also of Arkansas. Whether or not they will do so will depend on how serious the White House is about passing it, in my opinion. I just think the White House has more to offer Senators who play ball than even Wal-Mart or the whole coterie of big business PACs.

2. bob mcmanus Says:
   February 18th, 2009 at 11:48 am

   the wealthy business interests who’d been financing the Republican Party can’t be defeated at the ballot box

   Nuff said.

3. David Says:
   February 18th, 2009 at 11:49 am

   I admit I have a hard time understanding why a “moderate” democrat from Arkansas or the Midwest should have trouble supporting unions. I can’t speak for Berry’s district per se, but a lot of these Blue Dog districts are fairly populist. If you look at Blue Dog rhetoric when they are running they talk a conversative game on guns, gays, and abortion. This is to appeal to those very populists. But, if they wanted to they some of them, I think, could easily support EFCA if they framed it in the rhetoric of fairness. Yet, in the end, I think these people aren’t very creative and like their moderate power on these sorts of things.

4. Rich in PA Says:
   February 18th, 2009 at 11:52 am

   Two things.
   1) As Anon21 notes, who cares what House blue-dogs think? dems have a majority without them.

   2) As for the Senate, any blue-dog Dem should be told that the national party will hang them out to dry if they try to get more conservative than they’ve been, or try to move the party in their direction. If there’s no significant issue on which blue dogs aren’t willing to vote with Republicans, they should be cut loose. The Dems have no reason to hold on to them, especially at the cost of programmatic concessions, because they have 51 seats without them, but can’t count on them to make it to 60. Far from being in a position of great leverage, they’re in a position of great weakness.

5. colby Says:
   February 18th, 2009 at 11:52 am

   I understand what you’re saying, bu Berry himself is a bad example, as is ANYONE who supported EFCA last time. Because on the one hand, sure, they can get some fat big business money, but it’s at the cost of flip-flopping and painting a target on their backs for the unions and netroots. Now, I’m not sure how those competing forces would balance out, but given that Congressional Dems are fundamentally skittish creatures, especially the moderates, I think that probably DES give them great pause. So I don’t think you’ve made the case that they’re “loving” it…

6. John Says:
   February 18th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

   I admit I have a hard time understanding why a “moderate” democrat from Arkansas or the Midwest should have trouble supporting unions.

   Arkansas is not like the Midwest. The South has always been pretty anti-labor, even when it was mostly Democratic. Note that Taft-Hartley passed over Truman’s veto – Republicans had nowhere near a 2/3 majority in either House in the 80th Congress – lots and lots of southern Democrats voted for the thing.

   And that was in a much more pro-labor era than we’re in now. There’s nothing to be surprised about southern Democrats failing to support labor rights.

7. tropicgirl Says:
   February 18th, 2009 at 1:51 pm

   Oh well, the Dems should have thought of the rest of us backbone liberals when they stymie torture investigations, approve war funding, spying and the like.

   You made your bed with Obama and the centrists, now live with it and shut up already.

8. Sebastian Says:
   February 18th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

   Of course the fact that on the face of it, it takes away previously enjoyed secret ballots from workers might give the whole thing rather bad optics too. Couldn’t think of ANY other way to promote unions that didn’t take away the worker’s (whose side they are allegedly on) secret ballot rights?

9. Herschel Says:
   February 18th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

   Couldn’t think of ANY other way to promote unions that didn’t take away the worker’s (whose side they are allegedly on) secret ballot rights?

   But you see, the EFCA doesn’t do that. That is to say, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

10. Myles Says:
    February 18th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    I just don’t see how any Democrat in a conservative district would benefit from letting this thing pass and unleash a huge conservative backlash with business squarely behind the GOP (unlike 2008, when Obama was the favorite of the elites). They have absolutely nothing to gain by it, and their chances of getting unseated in a primary in a conservative district for reasons of labor law is rather slight.

11. colby Says:
    February 18th, 2009 at 7:09 pm

    Who’s to say that Obama- and his political party- won’t be the favorite of the elites in 2010 and 2012, either? I’m not sure they’d abandon him of EFCA, it was clear he supported that in 2008, too.

12. yep Says:
    February 18th, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    “But you see, the EFCA doesn’t do that. That is to say, you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

    Okey doke but George McGovern says you don’t know what you’re taling about.

    Really , he does.

    http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/now-this-is-bad-even-george-mcgovern.html

    In fact, it’s so radical that even Former Senator George McGovern is against the idea!
    He even opposed it in an ad.
    Tonight during the presidential debate George McGovern will describe why he’s against taking away the secret ballot for union organizing elections.

13. SteveIL Says:
    February 18th, 2009 at 9:57 pm

    David said:

    I admit I have a hard time understanding why a “moderate” democrat from Arkansas or the Midwest should have trouble supporting unions.

    Probably because the only thing they do is finance Democratic campaigns. They sure don’t serve any other useful purpose, especially since they gave up their main function, representing workers, a long time ago.

    Sebastian said:

    Couldn’t think of ANY other way to promote unions that didn’t take away the worker’s (whose side they are allegedly on) secret ballot rights?

    Herschel said:

    But you see, the EFCA doesn’t do that. That is to say, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Herschel, Sebastian is right. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

14. PA Says:
    February 18th, 2009 at 10:00 pm

    But you see, the EFCA doesn’t do that.

    Of course you can cite the relevant text in the legislation that keeps the secret ballot then, right? I had trouble finding it. Help me out here.

    The full text appears to be here.

15. Chris D Says:
    February 18th, 2009 at 11:32 pm

    The more relevant question is where the text that takes away the secret ballot is. Smarter trolls, please.

16. SteveIL Says:
    February 19th, 2009 at 6:38 am

    Chris D said:

    The more relevant question is where the text that takes away the secret ballot is.

    From the first part of Sec. 2(a) in the link proved by PA [emphasis mine]:

    IN GENERAL.—Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 159(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ‘‘(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bar gaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).

    Any questions?

17. Pure acai berry Says:
    February 19th, 2009 at 11:24 am

    Thank you for your help!

18. Matthew in Austin Says:
    February 19th, 2009 at 2:01 pm

    Throughout the progressive blogs, anytime a commenter expresses concern with the “taking away secret ballot” issue, the reply is always “you don’t know what you are talking about”, but no one ever specifically explains why. If you can’t win an honest debate about EFCA in a forum like this, you won’t be able to win it in Congress or the court of public opinion.

    As I understand it, the problem is that the current system allows management intimidation, because “no vote” in the secret ballot is a vote against unionization, so management can intimidate employees not to vote at all.

    The problem with the current system is that instead of getting rid of management intimidation, it just allows unions to intimidate as well. Union reps can corner workers in their homes and try to coerce them to sign a union card, picking them off one by one. Plus, Management still will know who is for unionization and who is against it and has the opportunity for retribution.

    So EFCA makes the current problem worse, not better.

    There seem to be several better ways to reform the organization process.
    Like, get rid of “no vote = no union” by requiring all employees to vote, or by calculating 50% based on number of votes instead of number of employees, assuming at least half (or whatever) of the employees vote.

    We should be trying to make the process fairer and more democratic, and instead we are trying to level the playing field to allow more intimidation. EFCA is pro union, but it is not pro-worker. And progressive blogs are refusing to debate these core issues honestly. Yglesias ignores it, and the pro-EFCA commenters just offer vague insults and name calling. You wouldn’t believe how many times I was accused of fellating corporate entities while I was just trying to get a basic understanding of EFCA.

19. Chris D Says:
    February 19th, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    SteveIL-Read the part before the bolded text. If the workers at a unit want an election, they can have one. But management can’t force an election if the majority of workers have expressed their desire for a union through other means.

    Matthew in Austin-How do workers express their desire for an election? Through card check. If it’s valid for one purpose, how is it not valid for the other? Also, there have been studies that have shown that using card check to organize has lessened intimidation from both unions and management.

    As for management retribution, EFCA is more than just card check. Under current law, the penalty for illegally firing an employee for union activity is back pay minus any pay earned after the firing. EFCA would change the penalty to three times back pay, so there would be a greater incentive to follow the law.

20. SteveIL Says:
    February 19th, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    Chris D said:

    SteveIL-Read the part before the bolded text. If the workers at a unit want an election, they can have one. But management can’t force an election if the majority of workers have expressed their desire for a union through other means.

    I read the part before the bolded text. My worry is retribution or bullying by the union. The secret ballot keeps both the union and management from knowing whether or not I want the union to represent me where I work. It’s kind of like my vote for President or how much money I make; it isn’t anyone else’s business.

21. Chris D Says:
    February 19th, 2009 at 8:40 pm

    If you want an election, that’s fine. If you can get 30% of your workers to sign off on it, you’ll get one.

22. Chris D Says:
    February 19th, 2009 at 8:41 pm

    By “workers,” I mean co-workers.

23. SteveIL Says:
    February 20th, 2009 at 11:01 am

    Chris D:

    If you want an election, that’s fine. If you can get 30% of your workers to sign off on it, you’ll get one.

    You’re missing the point. Why shouldn’t an election process with a secret ballot be used to get a union into a company?

24. Chris D Says:
    February 21st, 2009 at 12:44 am

    I’m not saying there shouldn’t be secret ballot elections. I’m saying they shouldn’t be regarded as the sole legitimate means of determining the preferences of workers. Again, workers indicate their desire for an election by signing off on a card. So I don’t see how you can say that the card check process is inherently flawed.

25. SteveIL Says:
    February 21st, 2009 at 7:28 am

    Chris D,

    And I’m saying secret ballot elections should always be used as a protection for the workers, as I had indicated in a previous comment. If the majority of a group of workers wants to be represented by a union, then a secret ballot election isn’t going to really slow down the process all that much.

26. viagra Says:
    March 1st, 2009 at 5:46 am

    viagra
    Great site. Good info

27. viagra Says:
    March 11th, 2009 at 4:43 am

    Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

28. zyban Says:
    March 12th, 2009 at 11:32 pm

    Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

29. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 6:16 am

    tramadol
    I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!

30. brand viagra Says:
    April 2nd, 2009 at 5:21 am

    Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
    buy cheap viagra

31. Ex Boyfriend Says:
    April 8th, 2009 at 10:42 pm

    The style of writing is very familiar . Did you write guest posts for other bloggers?

32. cheap viagra Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 6:12 am

    It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra

33. Heartburn Home Remedy Says:
    April 15th, 2009 at 7:50 am

    After reading through the article, I feel that I really need more info. Can you suggest some resources ?