×
Jon Chait reacts to Obama's discussion of a possible compromise on EFCA legislation during an interview with the Washington Post today:
The following is a bit of heresy against the conventional wisdom, but I'm not entirely convinced that the EFCA bill is in danger of failure. There's a lot of worry about the bill from all sides, and a real haze around Senate vote counting, but as much as we've heard that EFCA is electoral poison, a lot of senators got elected this year while supporting EFCA. Despite the elegance of the business community's "it takes away your secret ballot" meme -- n.b., the bill doesn't do that -- we haven't seen that message effectively sway public opinion.
Not to play whip, but consider the numbers in the Senate: Some Democratic senators, like Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln, have expressed equivocation over the bill, but as far as I know, none of the 50 Democrats who supported the measure last time have changed their position. Seven of the eight new Democratic members support the bill, and Mark Warner has not given a position, but apparently he is leaning towards yes. If Tim Johnson votes for the bill -- he was in ill health last time around -- and Arlen Specter, who supported the bill last time, finds himself hard pressed to vote against the bill before re-election, that's 61 votes right there. With their own re-election campaigns to think about -- and a President Obama who can put on some pressure -- perhaps some moderate Republicans will get behind the legislation. And with his retirement announced, some think that George Voinovich could be swayed to support card check.
To be sure, there are a lot of factors in play and the political landscape is ever-changing, but there are clearly a couple different avenues to get the bill through the upper chamber. Obama's perceived political capital here matters a lot. But in my reporting I have by no means found a consensus, either from legislative, business, or Senate sources, that this bill is dead in the water (or that it's a guaranteed success). It's biggest enemy is the question of where it fits in with the governing agenda -- after stimulus, and then what? But the amount of energy and money business interests are deploying to convince people the bill is political poison might be an indicator of just how close it is to passing.
The point of card check is that union elections have become a joke. Employers hold captive propaganda meetings, and routinely violate labor law by intimidating workers and firing organizers with no serious enforcement. That's why unions want card check, an expedited way to let workers form a union without facing massive pressure from their bosses. But if there was some other way to let employees decide whether or not to form a union without massive employer pressure, unions would probably settle for that, too. Indeed, some kind of compromise tostop employer intimidation is what I expect to happen in the end. It's far from all or nothing.This is certainly a reasonable expectation, especially given Obama's take on what kind of compromise that would be, from Ambinder:
You know, now if the business community's argument against the Employee Free Choice Act is simply that it will make it easier for people to join unions and we think that is damaging to the economy then they probably won't get too far with me. If their arguments are we think there are more elegant ways of doing this or here are some modifications or tweaks to the general concept that we would like to see. Then I think that's a conversation that not only myself but folks in labor would be willing to have.Here's the problem: The business community's argument against EFCA is "it will make it easier for people to join unions," which is bad. Both Chait and Obama are right that there are other potential mechanisms to reform the NLRB election process, but I find it hard to believe that business will actually seek to compromise; any measure that hinders their anti-union activities will be seen as a failure. By dint of it's simplicity -- and the fact that it has been one of the premier methods of organizing unions for decades -- card check may be the best public policy choice as well.
The following is a bit of heresy against the conventional wisdom, but I'm not entirely convinced that the EFCA bill is in danger of failure. There's a lot of worry about the bill from all sides, and a real haze around Senate vote counting, but as much as we've heard that EFCA is electoral poison, a lot of senators got elected this year while supporting EFCA. Despite the elegance of the business community's "it takes away your secret ballot" meme -- n.b., the bill doesn't do that -- we haven't seen that message effectively sway public opinion.
Not to play whip, but consider the numbers in the Senate: Some Democratic senators, like Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln, have expressed equivocation over the bill, but as far as I know, none of the 50 Democrats who supported the measure last time have changed their position. Seven of the eight new Democratic members support the bill, and Mark Warner has not given a position, but apparently he is leaning towards yes. If Tim Johnson votes for the bill -- he was in ill health last time around -- and Arlen Specter, who supported the bill last time, finds himself hard pressed to vote against the bill before re-election, that's 61 votes right there. With their own re-election campaigns to think about -- and a President Obama who can put on some pressure -- perhaps some moderate Republicans will get behind the legislation. And with his retirement announced, some think that George Voinovich could be swayed to support card check.
To be sure, there are a lot of factors in play and the political landscape is ever-changing, but there are clearly a couple different avenues to get the bill through the upper chamber. Obama's perceived political capital here matters a lot. But in my reporting I have by no means found a consensus, either from legislative, business, or Senate sources, that this bill is dead in the water (or that it's a guaranteed success). It's biggest enemy is the question of where it fits in with the governing agenda -- after stimulus, and then what? But the amount of energy and money business interests are deploying to convince people the bill is political poison might be an indicator of just how close it is to passing.
-- Tim Fernholz
