-by Sebastian
Democrats have dropped card check from the pending changes to union organization laws.
This allows the bill to focus on much less controversial methods of addressing union concerns about unfairness in union organization drives: including shorter election times, much stricter punishments for violating the law regarding organization, and faster arbitration.
Given any reasonable interpretation of these ideas (I'd support election times in a week or so though not just one or two days, I'd support harsher punishments but not the death penalty for frustrating union drives, and fair arbitration is fine--though I'm reluctant to pull the possiblity of appeal to actual courts) I'm all for it.
This also may be a good illustration of how mainstream Democrats can usefully use the tactics that publius described here. They can leverage general Republican obstructionism against a bill until they get the bad parts removed. Then they can switch over and support it. It also provides a good reality check: those who claimed to be opposing it on the basis of card check are now in a much harder position if they want to continue opposing the bill.
"those who claimed to be opposing it on the basis of card check are now in a much harder position if they want to continue opposing the bill."
No, they're not. The Republicans who were using the card check provisions as an excuse to oppose the EFCA? 99% of them will STILL oppose EFCA. The self-described "moderates" who were opposed, or at least stalling? Mostly will still oppose it.
Card Check was never the central issue to these people, it was just an excuse to oppose the bill and wrap themselves in self-righteous "Protecting secret elections!!!!" slogans. This was obvious because precisely none of them have done anything to try and protect the integrity of government elections in the past decade+, despite the many obvious flaws there.
That and the fact they're all bought and paid for by the big corporate interests who want to make sure they can keep breaking the law and driving out unions.
I'd love to be wrong, maybe they all really were making some principled stand for something they've never cared about before, but I kinda doubt it.
Seriously, what the hell is wrong with the Democrats in Congress (Well, Harry Reid, obviously) and Obama? Frittering away all their chances to make anything actually change, in favor of letting the Republicans and "moderates" stall and weaken everything, which gives them victory and means whatever they do manage to get through will probably not work very well. What kind of stupid politics IS that? There's no up side.
Posted by: Nate | July 20, 2009 at 01:37 PM
Nate, Sebastian's point is: if card check is removed from the EFCA, there are the votes to pass the bill even though many Republicans will continue to oppose passage. You will get the bill, albeit without card check.
Posted by: von | July 20, 2009 at 01:54 PM
von: Yes, that's why they say it was dropped. However, especially given the spectacle the "Senate moderates" have made of themselves during the Bush years, the health care fight, and their general behavior, I don't think it will work. Even assuming Kennedy and Byrd are able to reach the chamber to vote.
The Senators who were using card check as an excuse to block EFCA were using it as an excuse. They wanted to block the bill, claiming "SECRET ELECTIONS!!!11" was just a way to pretend to be doing it on some kind of principle, instead of just being useful idiots for the Republicans (and corporations) who want the bill dead. It's the same dynamic we saw with the stimulus, we're seeing with health care, we saw with Bush's judges, with everything else. The "Senate moderates" either agree with the Republicans but still want to pretend to be Democrats (Lieberman), or are more interested in proving they have "power" and that they're "moderate" by making bills weaker, without caring what that does to how the bills actually work.
Posted by: Nate | July 20, 2009 at 02:08 PM
"The Senators who were using card check as an excuse to block EFCA were using it as an excuse. They wanted to block the bill, claiming "SECRET ELECTIONS!!!11" was just a way to pretend to be doing it on some kind of principle, instead of just being useful idiots for the Republicans (and corporations) who want the bill dead."
Why do you believe that? I suppose you might be right. Wait three months and we'll know for sure.
Posted by: Sebastian | July 20, 2009 at 02:24 PM
Sebastian: See above. Their actions on Bush's judges, their actions through the whole Bush administration, their actions on the stimulus (demanding stuff be cut to make nice round numbers, irrelevant of what it did), their actions on health care so far, Joe Leiberman's entire career, etc. Either a) they want the bill dead, or b) they're useful idiots.
Posted by: Nate | July 20, 2009 at 02:30 PM
was someone proposing the death penalty for blocking union votes? That would certainly have been a change.
aimai
Posted by: AIMAI | July 20, 2009 at 02:36 PM
"was someone proposing the death penalty for blocking union votes? That would certainly have been a change."
Not that I'm aware of. So I'm probably supporting the new bill unless it has major revisions in the punishment section...
Posted by: Sebastian | July 20, 2009 at 02:38 PM
Sebastion, great to see a front pager from you.
Although I was a supporter of card check, which was falsely accused of a lot of things, reform of the system was more important to me. Therefore, I tend to agree with you that this bill still does that, and in a positive way.
I am less comfortable with the belief taht a lot of people who wouldn't have voted for the bill before will do so now, but we will, as you say, have to wait and see.
It is true that soem people who are opposed to something in its entirety will use one specific of that thing to focus on in their crticisms. That can backfire if that thing is changed. It will be interesting to see what those who remain against the bill focus on now as their chief complaint.
They may have to be careful, because if they continue to try to block its passage they may suddenly find card check back in it and have it pass anyway.
Posted by: John Miller | July 20, 2009 at 03:06 PM
Nate: Perhaps, but there is value in taking away their excuse. Either they vote for it, or they admit that they just plain don't like the rest of the bill either, and face the electoral ramifications thereof.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2009 at 03:09 PM
First-contract arbitration is a bigger deal, and a bad idea since it means the labout "market" will be planned by industrial relations neutrals.
Posted by: Pithlord | July 20, 2009 at 03:28 PM
I agree that first-contract arbitration shouldn't be in the bill, and that unions could very well live to regret it. Still, I think that the card check proposals were more problematic. Arbitration, after all, can be avoided by negotiation.
Posted by: von | July 20, 2009 at 03:59 PM
mainstream Democrats
I do not think that word means what you think it does.
At any rate, the bill's passage is still uncertain now that the Republicans filibuster *everything*.
Posted by: Mike Schilling | July 20, 2009 at 04:08 PM
I had a much more cynical comment, but I think I'm being far too cynical today, so I'll just say we'll find out soon if the "reasonable moderates" and Republicans agree with you, von, and comment no more today.
Posted by: Nate | July 20, 2009 at 04:09 PM
"I'd support harsher punishments but not the death penalty for frustrating union drives"
You certainly surely must agree that that would have quite a deterrent effect, don't you?
And I know you oppose torture, so be entirely clear that I don't direct this following comment at you, personally, at all, but the thought does cross my mind that mere waterboarding a few times might be a sufficient deterrent, what with it, according to so many, being merely at the level of a mild fraternity prank, after all.
No, I'm not exactly serious here.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 20, 2009 at 06:43 PM
This isn't indubitable evidence, but Atlantic Politics says business sources are still confident that EFCA can't get sixty votes, even without card check. They could be bluffing, but that suggests some Senators were not being open about their reasons for opposing the bill.
Posted by: Justin | July 20, 2009 at 09:34 PM
"You certainly surely must agree that that would have quite a deterrent effect, don't you?"
I think this a joke, but frankly deterrent effect ought be at most a second order concern. Proportion has to be a first order concern, or we would just institute the death penalty for everything.
Posted by: Sebastian | July 20, 2009 at 10:50 PM
"I think this a joke"
Yes, my subtle clue was writing "No, I'm not exactly serious here."
"Proportion has to be a first order concern, or we would just institute the death penalty for everything."
So you're saying this wouldn't be a good idea?
You're right; it was a terrible episode, like almost all of the first season episodes.
Larry Niven did it much better.
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 20, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Without wading into the card-check-or-not quagmire, who will guarantee that harder punishments on the books for anti-union activities will be actually enforced? To my knowledge there are already strict regulations on the books but the fines the companies have to actually pay in reality (if at all) are negligible (compared to the costs of actually complying with the law).
"But now it will be even more forbidden!" is not very effective in that case.
Posted by: Hartmut | July 21, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Without wading into the card-check-or-not quagmire, who will guarantee that harder punishments on the books for anti-union activities will be actually enforced?
Why, those lovely moderate Republicans like Sebastian who so strongly believe that the employer, not the employees, ought to get to decide if the employees are allowed to form a union, that they're willing to take the decision of whether or not to have elections out of the employees' hands and put it where it belongs: with their employer.
Mere hard-working employees can't be trusted to decide whether or not to unionize - why, some of them actually vote Democrat, they can't be smart! - and it's just as well they've got good, solid, mainstream Republicans just like Sebastian looking out for their interests and making sure that unless their employer wants a union, the employees won't get one.
Those laws against anti-union activity by employers were never meant to be enforced: they're just a gentleman's agreement meaning "don't get caught". The real threat is from unions and employees who want to unionize, and the full weight of the law should be meted out against those kind of people.
Bring on the waterboarding. It's just a harmless ducking.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | July 21, 2009 at 10:52 AM
"To my knowledge there are already strict regulations on the books but the fines the companies have to actually pay in reality (if at all) are negligible (compared to the costs of actually complying with the law)."
The penalties were greatly increased.
Posted by: Sebastian | July 21, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Increased penalties don't mean anything when they're not enforced, Sebastian.
Also, see above comments about "still" not having 60 for my opinion on who got played here.
Hint: The American People.
Posted by: Nate | July 21, 2009 at 01:21 PM
"Increased penalties don't mean anything when they're not enforced, Sebastian."
That is true with all law. Do you have specific concerns about Obama's willingness to enforce them?
Posted by: Sebastian | July 21, 2009 at 03:04 PM
Obama's, probably not, though his leadership on this (and Gitmo, and health care, and several other things) has left a lot to be desired, compared to what he showed he could do, in the campaign. Though the Clinton years weren't exactly banner years for unions, either.
I'm more worried about the next Republican administration, in 4 or 8 or whatever years, be it Yet Another Bush, Palin, Romney, Huckabee, or whoever. Because the Republicans have shown over my entire lifetime they have no interest in enforcing labor laws. And laws need to be written not just assuming that your side's going to use them, so they need to be self-enforcing, or create other centers of power who have an interest in seeing them enforced. Which in this case would theoretically be labor unions, but that assumes unions (in general, not specific abberations like the CA Prison union) get enough power to make sure they'll be enforced. But without adequate enforcement, the same status quo of union formation will stay in play, and I don't know that even with the maximum hopeful enforcement of this law, for 8 years, that'll make enough difference on union organization rates to matter.
Posted by: Nate | July 21, 2009 at 03:17 PM