This is the first in an ongoing series of diaries on EFCA, the Employee Free Choice Act.
The debate about this bill needs more attention, because it exposes a serious and complicated rift in the Democratic Party. The waffling of Democratic senators on EFCA speaks to the success of the anti-union movement in demonizing labor.
As I track EFCA's progress (hopefully with you're help), I want to start to uncover the arguments that are thrown around within Democratic circles that are subtly or overtly hostile to labor. Which of these arguments have merit, and which are taken straight from the playbook of corporate lobbyists? Where can we push on the labor movement to shape up, and where should we be standing firm in their defense?
I believe that a strong and respected labor movement is good for everyone. When workers band together, fewer people fall through the cracks of our society...putting less pressure on the social safety net and making our communities safer and happier places to live. But I hope this diary will be a place for some substantive debate about that premise.
NOTE: In these diaries, I will be focusing primarily, if not exclusively, on S. 560, the Senate version of EFCA, because that is where the action and movement is likely to be.
I. Background
See Wikipedia and go from there.
II. Summary (as of April 14, 2009)
Slip Slidin' Away
EFCA -- as re-introduced by Senator Edward Kennedy on March 10th, 2009 -- seems to be on its very last legs. Several Democratic senators as well as the formerly-supportive Senator Arlen Specter have said that they will not support the bill in its current form.
This means the field is wide open. On the surface it seems wise for EFCA supporters to retreat for now and focus on:
1)winning the close senate races in 2010, which could reduce or remove the threat of a filibuster.
2)Taking advantage of Obama's progressive appointment at Department of Labor to better enforce existing labor laws.
On the other hand, the pro-EFCA forces have already geared up for a fight, and I'm not sure they'll be able to pull back, even if it turns out to be the wisest course of action. If that's the case, it looks like we're talking about some form of compromise measure. (Please see this blog post for an excellent, updated discussion of possible compromise.)
III. Tracking the Debate, Question 1:
What does it mean that Senator Arlen Specter reversed himself on EFCA?
Senator Specter now opposes EFCA, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the bill to pass with its three pillars intact: card-checks, binding arbitration, and mandatory injunctions in the case of employer interference in union drives.
Because Senator Specter represents the blue state of Pennsylvania, this reversal is germane to the rift within the Democratic party about whether "big labor" is friend or foe.
On the senate floor, Specter said he bases his opposition to EFCA on "the elimination of the secret ballot which is the cornerstone of how contests are decided in a democratic society" while at the same time leaving the door open for supporting EFCA "when the economy turns to normalcy." This nonsensical position (if the law is bad, why not simply declare yourself in opposition, regardless of the state of the economy?) would seem to be, above all, a reflection of the ambivalence of Pennsylvania Democrats toward EFCA, and by extension the labor movement in general. If PA Democrats stood tall and proud behind this bill, Specter would be forced to stand down.
In other words, the labor movement has not yet won the debate, even within the Democratic rank and file.
In Volume 2 of this diary, I'll begin to discuss why this might be the case.