A Specter of Hope on Card Check

It looks like Senator Arlen Specter will vote no on the “Employee Free Choice Act.”  This is very good news, as it probably means that the card check bill is dead for now. 

Under current law, employers can demand a secret ballot election before their shop is unionized.  If the EFCA passes, a business can be unionized if a majority of employees sign cards in favor of the move.  

I have blogged on this bill before.  The EFCA is an abominable piece of work.  It is designed to allow pro-union people at any site to know who is and who is not voting for a union, and to bring every pressure they can on the hold outs.  It is the very opposite of a “free choice” bill. 

Sam Hananel at RealClearPolitics has this:

In a setback for organized labor, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said Tuesday he will oppose a bill that would make it easier for workers to form unions.

Specter was the only Republican to support the Employee Free Choice Act two years ago, and unions were hoping he might be the crucial 60th vote needed to overcome an expected GOP filibuster of the measure when it's taken up this summer.

Specter is under enormous pressure from both sides.  For whatever reason, he has decided to do the right thing. 

Comments

[A.I.]

This very well may not be the "right thing" for Specter and certainly is not for labor union organizers.

Specter seems to be in a untenable position in that he very well might lose a primary if he supports EFCA. But that ship very well may have sailed already with his vote for the stimulus. Which is to say his best bets for re-election in a blue-trending state with a strong union vote may have been continued support for EFCA and running as either a Democrat or independent. As it is, he's just a flip-flopper that has long been less-than-popular with the conservative R. base he needs in a primary and just deserted the labor constituency he likely needs in the general. I think the scientific term for that political state of affairs might be "oh snap".

I read at least one of your previous posts that conjured up the small-s specter of thugs "explaining" to workers why they and their loved ones really would be better off is they signed union organization cards. Card check might be subject to abuse if organized crime were deeply involved in modern unions. As it is, the greater threat of undue influence comes from employers who, among many anti-union tactics, can fire union sympathisers before they ever get to cast the secret ballot some claim is sacrosanct in all situations.

In fact, the deck is stacked against union organizers. Any ideas of how to unstack it absent use of card check?

[A.I.]

This very well may not be the "right thing" for Specter and certainly is not for labor.

Specter seems to be in a untenable position in that he very well might lose a primary if he supports EFCA. But that ship very well may have sailed already with his vote for the stimulus. Which is to say his best bets in a blue-trending state with a strong union vote may have been continued support for EFCA and running as either a Democrat or independent. As it is, he's just a flip-flopper that has long been less-than-popular with the conservative R. base and just deserted his labor constituency. I think the scientific term for that political state of affairs might be "oh snap".

I read some of your previous posts that conjured up the "specter" of thugs "explaining" to workers why they and their loved ones really would be better off is they signed union organization cards. Card check would be subject to abuse if organized crime were deeply involved in modern unions. As it is, the greater threat of undue influence comes from employers who, among many anti-union tactics, can fire union sympathisers before they ever get cast the secret ballot some tout a sacrosanct.

[A.I.]

Sorry about the redundancy. It appeared my first post didn't save so...

[KB]

A.I.:

The cards may be stacked against union organizers, but card check does nothing except to allow union men and union supporters to bring pressure on hold outs. Organized crime is the worse scenario, but there are lots of ways to make people miserable without actually breaking their arms. This isn't a judgment call. The secret ballot is there to protect people's right to make a choice without anyone looking over their shoulders. Getting rid of it is the very opposite of "free choice."

I am guessing that there are ways to level the playing field for unions visa vis management. The unions aren't interested in a level playing field. They want one stacked in their favor.

[A.I.]

You say: "The secret ballot is there to protect people's right to make a choice without anyone looking over their shoulders. Getting rid of it is the very opposite of "free choice."

My understanding is EFCA includes a provision for voting by secret ballot if 30% of workers call for it by card check. That obviously means a minority of workers can force a ballot even if a majority have opted for union representation by signing cards. EFCA doesn't eliminate secret ballots, it gives the right to opt for one to workers rather than managment.

Card check systems have passed Supreme Court muster in a couple of cases and are used now in companies that allow for it, AT&T is one. Are you saying thousands of AT&T workers were intimidated into joining their union and are suffering in silence as they yearn for a chance to be free of representation through a company imposed secret ballot?

As it is, the company decides the election type--usually opting for secret ballot. They can then shut outside organizers out of company facilities and have often fired employee organizers. The National Labor Relations Board can get, and has gotten such employees re-instated, but why should anyone have to go through that.