Will Workers Be Betrayed Once Again, This Time With The Employee Free Choice Act?

[Better Believe It]

Senate Republicans Deal A Major Defeat to Labor
By CATHERINE S. MANEGOLD,
New York Times
July 13, 1994


Handing organized labor a major defeat, Senate Republicans today blocked passage of a bill that would have made it illegal for employers to hire permanent replacements for workers striking over wages and benefits. Republican threats to filibuster the bill, which passed the House comfortably last year, led Senate leaders to schedule today's vote over whether to cut off debate.

The bill, called the Striker Replacement Act in the House but renamed the Worker Fairness Act in the Senate to mute conservative opposition, was at the top of organized labor's legislative agenda and was a Labor Department priority under Secretary Robert B. Reich.

Despite early and consistent backing by President Clinton, however, it never inspired the midnight phone calls and political arm twisting that the White House has lavished on other difficult political issues like the North American Free Trade Agreement or last year's budget.

Since even the hint of a filibuster can move the Senate toward a cloture vote, which calls for a wider margin of victory than the passage of a bill does, the Republicans have found it an effective tactic in stalling or forcing changes in legislation that the party opposes but cannot defeat on a majority vote.

Supporters of the labor bill roundly attacked the threatened filibuster over the last two days, saying it prevented reasonable debate on a critical issue. Arguing that the allowance of permanent replacements nullifies other legal protections for strikers, Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, told the Senate that American workers were losing a basic right without a fair fight.

Speaking of the striker-replacement bill, David Westfall, a Harvard University law professor who specializes in labor and employment law, said, "This was labor's No. 1 priority, and if they could not pull this off even with a Democratic President who said he would sign it, then I think the whole striker-replacement issue is dead."

Read the complete article at:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A962958260

- Will a fake phantom filibuster by Republicans be enough to stop the Employee Free Choice Act or will Senate Democrats force Republicans to actually filibuster on the Senate floor until 60 votes for cloture is achieved? -

[polichick]

1. Dems had better not let workers down now - that would be a crime!

[iconocrastic]

16. The secret ballot is sacrosanct if you believe in democracy,

whether you favor unions or not. Nobody needs thugs in their living room. I've seen it myself, and the talking-points are BS.

[ogneopasno]

2. I have held off on my Election 2008 glee until Obama and Congressional Democrats get the EFCA

passed. If they can't, labor should withhold endorsements, cash and volunteers in 2010.

[AndyA]

3. Make the GOP SOB's filibuster!

Make them stay there all night long! All weekend! MAKE THEM FILIBUSTER. And while they're doing it, every Dem should be on EVERY television and cable show they can book, to explain how this is bad for America's workers, who have already had the hell beat out of them by the after birth of the Bush economic prosperity.

Make those SOB's filibuster until they are so tired they can't speak any longer! Don't let them control the agenda with veiled threats. Call them on it! Grow a pair, Harry.

[Better Believe It]

4. President Obama can "urge" Senate Democrats to force a Republican filibuster

President Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party and as such he should/will make it clear that Democrats will challenge a real Republican filibuster against EFCA.

Democrats should not use a phantom or even real Republican filibuster as an excuse to withdraw EFCA or to water it down until it becomes a greatly weakened and ineffectual bill.

[AndyTiedye]

5. Only One Problem With That

Democrats don't get to "book" those shows, the producers of those shows do, and they only book Republicans and blue dogs who talk and act like Republicans.

[AndyA]

6. Yes, that is a problem, but they can get on enough shows to get the word out.

Countdown, Rachel Maddow Show, Hardball, 1600 Penn Avenue will book Dems, and most networks will want a Dem response. Dems just need to make sure their response gets the message out. Short and sweet, no sound bytes that can be edited to represent something else.

"The GOP is wasting time filibustering. Americans need jobs, job protection, and the GOP doesn't want that for America."

Then we need laws to prevent consolidation and irresponsbility in the media.

[Better Believe It]

7. If the Republicans actually obstruct Senate business with a filibuster that will be the major news

story and supporters of EFCA (Senators, Obama and others) will get plenty of media coverage. In addition one would expect organizations that support EFCA to engage in a massive coordinated media blitz with radio/TV commercials, newspaper ads, news conferences, demonstrations, etc., that will explain EFCA to the public and attack the greedy Republican/Wall Street obstructionists who represent the billionaire tycoons and hate working people.

You get the picture.

That's how winning campaigns are waged.

[tritsofme]

8. Don't know how the filibuster works do you?

The onus is on the majority to find 60 votes to end debate.

That means that while your much vaunted filibuster is happening, the entire Democratic caucus must be present and ready to invoke cloture.

While it only takes one Republican sitting there reading the phone book, while the rest of the GOP is out hitting the cable news shows to keep it alive.

[Better Believe It]

9. Why do you continue to defend Republican filibusters?

I believe in real filibusters where Republicans actually must take the Senate floor and engage in debate until they either give up or 60 votes are cast (cloture) to end debate.

I take it you continue to support phantom Republican filibusters whereby Republicans are not even required to even been on and hold the Senate floor until 60 cloture votes are achieved.

Are you really opposed to calling the Republicans bluff and forcing Republican them to filibuster against EFCA until 60 votes are passed for cloture when it comes up for a vote? If so, why?

I'm tired of hearing supposedly progressive individuals defend Republican filibusters and engage in endless attacks against those who actually want to defeat Republican obstructionism in the Senate. And I'm tired of hearing lame excuses to justify Democratic surrender and capitulation to the Republican minority in the Senate on the bogus grounds that "we can't get 60 votes" without even a challenge to Republicans to engage in a real filibuster.

Now I'm sure can come up with a long list of reasons defending capitulation to the Republicans on the matter of filibusters.

But, I doubt any of them will be valid and they will actually be a weak attempt at diversion.

The bottom line is this.

Will you support Republican Senate obstructionism against EFCA or not? And if not, how do you propose to get EFCA passed since it's highly improbable you will get 60 votes to pass it?

You can possibly get 60 votes to end debate if the Republicans are forced to engage in a filibuster, but after the 60 cloture votes are achieved you will only need 51 Senate votes to pass EFCA.

And since you claim to be so knowledgable on filibusters, do you think the Senate can and therefore should change the Senate rules which would require only a majority vote for EFCA to pass it should cloture not be achieved?

Want to scare the living crap out of Republicans? Do to them what they did to Senate Democrats in 2005.

Now maybe you're a badminton or softball kind of person. But, this is hardball politics. And if you can't play that game with Republicans who are experts at it, get out of the way friend, you're part of the problem, not the solution!

[tritsofme]

15. You present a false choice. And that with us or against us crap is so 2002.

The choice isn't standing with obstructionist Republicans or for some particular piece of legislation. It is whether you care to acknowledge the way the Senate works, or not.

I'm not necessarily opposed to "calling their bluff," I just don't see what could realistically be accomplished.

It only takes 1 Republican senator to suggest the absence of quorum or read a telephone book for hours on end, but it takes every single supporter of the legislation to be on the floor at all times waiting for a chance for the minority to fold. This offers no incentive for the minority to back down.

Republicans kept the Senate open for 48 hours straight trying to break Democratic filibusters on Bush judicial nominees, and it had the practical effect of a press release.

If you don't like the way the current rules work, the correct way to change them is through the normal rules changing procedure, it takes 67 votes.

If you want make the debate in this country about which Democrat is the biggest hypocrite, then start having leadership talk about the "nuclear option"

There is a difference between hardball politics and having unrealistic expectations of the way the world works.

Rahm knows how to play the hardest ball, I think I'll leave it to him.

[Better Believe It]

17. You clearly know little or nothing about Senate rules and yet run around

here pretending to be an expert!

"It only takes 1 Republican senator to suggest the absence of quorum or read a telephone book for hours on end, but it takes every single supporter of the legislation to be on the floor at all times waiting for a chance for the minority to fold."

And how long do you think 1 Republican Senator can hold the floor? A week or month? Ya gotta be kidding! And 50 or more Senators who support EFCA must be on the floor during the entire filibuster in order to move for a cloture vote? You're spouting pure nonsense!

If necessary, the Democratic Senate leadership can easily change Senate rules so that only 51 votes will be required to pass EFCA. Of course, people opposed to the Employee Free Choice Act would prefer to do it your way, using the so-called "normal rules" that will permit Republicans to defeat EFCA and every other piece of progressive legislation that will come up for a vote.

So while you may support EFCA in your head, objectively you will support the Republican campaign against EFCA by defending Senate rules that will permit the Republicans to suppress the rights of working people.

We're talking about the impact the defeat of EFCA will have on tens of millions of ordinary working people. Perhaps that's not so important to you .... certainly not as important as defending "rules" that could enable the Republicans to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act.

That's a shame.

It's unfortunate you think so little of workers rights in this nation.

I've heard enough weak arguments and excuses justifying political paralysis.

[CreekDog]

10. why don't you post a correct link to the column

by the way: regarding your not trusting Obama or Democrats.

after reading a 1000 of your posts, i get it. okay? :eyes:

[Better Believe It]

11. Thanks. Here's the correct link:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E7D6123FF930A25754C0A962958260

And I think it would be wise for you to actually read a post before commenting on it.

This may be a novel idea for you but I urge you to try it!

Trust has nothing to do with EFCA. Hardball and realistic politics has everything to do with EFCA.

And it has everything to do with challenging and defeating the right-wing Republican obstructionists in Congress.

Get it?

Or is this beyond your comprehension and/or personal experience, that is, actually challenging and defeating the Republican minority in Congress?

[AngryAmish]

12. Short answer - yes

We always get screwn.

[masuki bance]

13. Obama is committed to ensuring that workers can choose to gain a union voice on the job

BARACK OBAMA WILL RESTORE WORKERS’ FREEDOM TO FORM UNIONS AND BARGAIN

Barack Obama is committed to ensuring that workers can choose to gain a union voice on the job and bargain with their employers for better wages, benefits and working conditions— without employer harassment or intimidation.

Obama Voted for Employee Free Choice Act. Obama co-sponsored and voted for the Employee Free Choice Act, which would restore workers’ freedom to form unions and bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions without employer harassment. (H.R. 800, Vote 227, 6/26/07)

Obama Promises to Sign the Employee Free Choice Act into Law. Obama says, “We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act. It’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when.” (Chicago Tribune, 3/4/07)

Obama: Employee Free Choice Act Gives Workers Majority Sign-Up. Obama said, “Th e Employee Free Choice Act will allow workers to form a union through majority sign-up and card-checks, and strengthen penalties for those employers who are in violation. The choice to organize should be left up to workers and workers alone. It should be their free choice.” (Obama Senate Press Release, 6/20/07)

Obama Says Choice to Form Unions Belongs to Workers. “Th e choice to organize should be left up to workers and workers alone. It should be their free choice.” At an AFSCME forum, Obama said, “In this country, we believe that if the majority of workers in a company want a union, they should get a union. We can do this.” (Take Back America Conference, 6/19/07; Obama Senate Press Release, 6/20/07)

Obama Says Workers Are Victimized by Current Law. Obama said workers are being victimized by current organizing laws. “The employers are abiding by the letter of the law...but it turns out we (still) have an overwhelming number of voters who would want to join a union....It would seem to me that we should change the law.” (Investor’s Business Daily, 3/30/07)

Obama Rallied With Resurrection Health Care Employees Promoting Passage of Employee Free Choice Act. Obama attended a rally of 2,000 hospital employees, union members and supporters promoting passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. “Keep marching for justice,” Obama told the Resurrection workers. “Where there is injustice anywhere, it suppresses justice everywhere. And organized labor has a history of bringing about justice.” The rally brought attention to the Resurrection workers’ campaign to form a union with AFSCME. (AFSCME 31, 3/5/07)

Obama Voted for Collective Bargaining Rights for Airport Screeners. Obama supported an amendment granting 43,000 airport screeners limited collective bargaining rights without the ability to strike or negotiate for higher pay. (S.Amdt. 316 to S.Amdt. 275 to S. 4, Vote 64, 3/7/07)

Obama Publicly Supports Workers Trying to Form Unions and Gain Contracts. In addition to his support for Resurrection staff , Obama has publicly supported workers in organizing and bargaining campaigns many times, from walking a picket line with Congress Hotel employees last year in Chicago to refusing to cross the picket line of striking television writers and urging the head of WMUR-TV in New Hampshire to negotiate a fair contract. (AFL-CIO Now blog, 11/26/07, 12/4/07, 12/28/07)

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/obama_wrights.cfm

[Better Believe It]

14. We already know that. But, the question is how can the EFCA be passed in this Congress

And how hard is President Obama willing to fight for passage of EFCA including taking on any real Republican filibuster against EFCA.

President Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party.

He can "urge", publicly if necessary, Senator Reid and other Democratic Senators to challenge Republican obstructionism from forcing them to filibuster and breaking their filibuster all the way to stopping a Republican filibuster by changing Senate rules so that a simple majority of Senators, 51, can pass the EFCA in an up and down vote.

The Republican don't control the Senate. The Democrats together with Vice-President Biden are suppose to be in charge now.

We'll soon find out who really runs the Senate, won't we?

[Hippo_Tron]

18. The EFCA will not pass unless there is a shift in the country's attitude about organized labor

Union membership is at an all time low and lots of people have bought into the RW myths about unions. Labor has a lot of groundwork to do before the Democrats can realistically round up the votes.

[Better Believe It]

19. What kind of shift do you want to see? Most people support the right of workers to join unions

Now that's the newest excuse I've read in defense of timidity and inaction! Blame it on a supposedly ignorant right-wing public. But the polls indicate just the opposite of what you are claiming! But that doesn't matter now, does it? Blame the people and not Democratic politicians if they fail to conduct a serious hardball fight against Republicans to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

We sure can't let the facts get in the way of your false claim that most people "have bought into the RW myths about unions" and therefore most don't support labor unions and oppose the right of workers to join a union!

Here's a good dose of hard facts to combat your disinformation on the subject.

--------------------------------

December 1, 2008
Americans Remain Broadly Supportive of Labor Unions
by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans remain broadly supportive of labor unions, as they have been over the past seven decades, including a 59% approval <31% disapproval> rating for unions in Gallup's most recent update from August.



In another poll conducted by the non-partisan think tank, The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, they found that "Overall, 68% of middle-class adults would have liked their representative in the U.S. House to vote for legislation allowing employees to be represented by a union when a majority of coworkers sign cards saying they want to join that union."

Specifically, 80% of Democrats, 60% of Republicans, and 59% of Independents polled were in favor of their representatives voting for the bill.

American Rights at Work Executive Director Mary Beth Maxwell put the poll in perspective:

"This new poll reinforces that a clear majority of Americans - be they Democrats, Independents, or Republicans - want policies like the Employee Free Choice Act that will help working families struggling in this economy. <...> Momentum for the Employee Free Choice Act is real and while anti-union corporations and their front groups are spending millions to mislead the public, Americans aren't buying it."

http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/latest-updates/68-of-middle-class-supports-the-employee-free-choice-act-20080820-631-83-83.html