Want to know Obama's position on the EFCA,

[ProSense]

here:

President Obama Wants You to Join the Union

Obama Reaffirms Support for Employee Free Choice Act

President Obama: "We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act"

[babylonsister]

1. You rock, Pro! Here's a clue:

http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/02/12/obama-reaffirms-support-for-employee-free-choice-act/

Obama Reaffirms Support for Employee Free Choice Act

From February of this year

Damn, so he must have talked about it!

[rwheeler31]

2. Will the senate pass it?

[firedupdem]

3. Thanks for the links. People get a kick out of making stuff up.

Those sitting in the senate making sure it doesn't get to his desk should be the target.

[NYC_SKP]

4. We really need a ProSense Appreciation Thread!

Recommended!

[ProSense]

5. Yikes!

No.

Thanks!

:)

[NYC_SKP]

8. Well, you could always alert on it.

I just posted it, before I read this, and would happily self delete, just say the word (but soon).

But you deserve it.

[firedupdem]

7. Really we do! You start it and I'll keep it kicked! n/t

[Pisces]

6. People would rather tear him down than do some research.

[FreakinDJ]

9. Nice Graphic to go with your links

Trade union membership (most recent) by country

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_tra_uni_mem-labor-trade-union-membership

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)
#1 Sweden: 82%
#2 Denmark: 76%
#3 Finland: 76%
#4 Norway: 57%
#5 Belgium: 53%
#6 Ireland: 45%
#7 Austria: 37%
#8 Italy: 35%
#9 Canada: 30%
#10 United Kingdom: 29%
#11 Germany: 26%
#12 Australia: 25%
#13 Netherlands: 25%
#14 Switzerland: 22%
#15 New Zealand: 22%
#16 Japan: 22%
#17 United States: 13%
#18 France: 9%
Weighted average: 38.0%

[LooseWilly]

10. I have to point out, again... your response links are actually older than Political Heretics' OP...

... where you originally posted this.

Except for the last one... but that one was delivered to the AFL-CIO, and hence hardly contradicts what Political Heretic, in his thread, suggested: that Obama might not be campaigning hard enough to support the EFCA. A perspective that was either inspired by or re-inforced by an article in Forbes Magazine.

Just saying, your links actually don't de-value a word of what Political Heretic has said. I'd like to believe that Obama still supports EFCA, and that he'll fight for it... but there seem to be signs that he's wavering.

[tkmorris]

11. Why, that's a balanced viewpoint

Thank you.

[LooseWilly]

12. You're welcome...

and here I thought I was gonna get flamed... got my asbestos smoking jacket on and everything.

[Political Heretic]

19. Not only that, but the date of the forbes article only reinforces my point, as I explain below

Where in the OP's case, the date of these statements pretty much makes my point as well, as I also point out in my post below.

[Two Americas]

13. will he fight for it?

That is the question, not what his "position" may or may not be.

Democrats always "take a position" that will mollify their various constituencies. They rarely fight for anything.

Right here we have people saying things such as "don't get me wrong, I support gay rights BUT..." which s then followed by a bigoted hatefest against the people on the GLBTQ community here, and not one in hundred hetero people here ever come to the defense of the community.

That is just one example. Likewise we see the same thing on the issue of organized Labor, the poor and the homeless, the war on terror, the illegal invasions and occupations overseas, the wiretapping, the detentions, the Wall Street bailouts and every other issue.

Somehow, saying that you are for something is supposed to take the place of actually fighting for something, and we are all supposed to be happy with the "support" for the "position" - lip service that is often as not pandering - and STFU and go away.

Democrats have been saying the right things for 40 years. Action has been a different story, and in lieu of that we get an endless litany of excuses - "we have other priorities right now, you can't always get what you want, these things take time, we don't have the numbers, the public is conservative, it has only been two months" and on and on.



....

[Djinn]

14. have been watching the EFCA 'debate'

with more interest than most US political issues for some time (hardly a surprise there I guess) and what I'm seeing is all very familiar to anyone with a knowledge of labor history.

Despite Congressional majorities under 4 Democratic President's, and despite having repeal of Taft-Hartley on their platform - was there a move to actually do it?

Those that refuse to learn from history (and US Labor leadership is second probably only to Australian Labor on this one) are condemned to repeat it, they'd do well to view the "life" of the Common Situs Picketing Bill & Striker Replacement Bill.

Can't say I'm too confident, sometimes think I should abandon my love of history - it can make life painful watching it all happen again.

[Political Heretic]

18. That question is already answered, which is what is angering some

He has not fought for it precisely when it mattered most.

"Democrats always "take a position" that will mollify their various constituencies. They rarely fight for anything."

That is a tragic truth, that fits just fine with the OP's "proof" threads.

[Hope And Change]

15. K & R!

[pnorman]

16. "In terms of timetable, if we're losing a half million jobs a year,

then there are no jobs to unionize. So my focus first is on those key economic priority items."

Sounds good so far!

pnorman

[Political Heretic]

17. There's an obivous, rational response that no one wants to hear.

Each of those links, links to statements - very passive, benign statements at that - made prior to the bill being introduced in Congress!

Link #1 - February 1st
Link #2 - February 12th
Link #3 - March 4th

Introduction of EFCA - March 10th

Secondly, three links to minor statements is hardly what I would consider making the passage of EFCA a policy priority. You think when we get to Health Care you're only going to be able to dig up a couple of weak statements of action-less support? No. You'll see a complete campaign. You'll be reminded what making something a policy priority looks like. 24/7. Remember how Bush blitzed on the Iraq War? That's what a president does when they are absolutely committed to getting a priority done no matter what.

He sends is staff out everywhere, to every show, in every media market. He tours the country. He raise money / spends money. Imagine what this amazing, stunning communicator could have done with a prime time press conference on EFCA. People who say "we don't have the votes" - you are the ones playing politics as usual. I'm the one dreaming about what this President could do if he chose....

And as far as saying that Obama didn't do very much with those statements made prior to the bill hitting Congress (after which he "went darK), the business community agrees on this point. Clear back in February you have Forbes Magazine thanking the President for backing off and quieting down on EFCA. That's not the praise I want our president to have. But it also indicates that certainly the Business community got the fact that Obama's minor statements on EFCA were nothing close to an administration making something a policy priority, and they were relieved.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8317813&mesg_id=8317813

And so, some of us are disappointed that the President hasn't demonstrated that kind of commitment to EFCA because we feel it is that critical and urgent of an issue. Now, a lot of other people don't. So fine, you don't feel its urgent enough to warrant that kind of action. Great. But I do. So obviously I'm going to be giving my opinion that the President hasn't done enough and that his near total silence on EFCA for as long as EFCA has actually been a real bill is a major disappointment to me.

So now you've got this thread, with people so anxious to tear down inconvenient perspectives (note I didn't say truths, because as with most politics there's a large amount of beliefs and opinions that are part of it) rather than consider them.

This isn't a contest between someone smart and someone stupid. This isn't a contest between someone truthful and someone dishonest. This is a debate between someone who feels Obama did everything he should and could have reasonably done when it comes to EFCA, and prefers that we take a different strategy on labor going forward vs. someone who feels Obama should have done more, and that not doing so is a crippling blow to both the American worker and to our long term economic health.

That's all - its just a difference of opinion.

[biopowertoday]

20. Very good post. Thanks

for taking the time to lay out the timeline.
I am so disappointed to see the lack of enthusiasm for the bill by the WH. Sad.


..............This isn't a contest between someone smart and someone stupid. This isn't a contest between someone truthful and someone dishonest. This is a debate between someone who feels Obama did everything he should and could have reasonably done when it comes to EFCA, and prefers that we take a different strategy on labor going forward vs. someone who feels Obama should have done more, and that not doing so is a crippling blow to both the American worker and to our long term economic health................

[biopowertoday]

21. ....... Needless to say, Corporate America didn't take kindly to EFCA, .....

The Administration has no desire to upset corporate America. simple as that.

http://socialistworker.org/2009/04/03/efca-on-the-ropes



......"The bill, as written," the Politico article concluded, "appears to have a slim chance of moving forward, and labor union supporters now fear it may be on hold until after next year's midterm elections."

EFCA was the major political priority of the U.S. labor movement in the 2008 elections. The proposal would make it easier for workers to join unions by giving them the option of bypassing a drawn-out National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) supervised election--a process frequently abused by corporations to intimidate workers--in favor of a simple majority of workers signing union cards to achieve legal union recognition. EFCA would also increase fines on companies that violate workers' rights and make it harder for employers to avoid signing initial contracts with newly unionized workers.

Needless to say, Corporate America didn't take kindly to EFCA, and spent hundreds of millions, mobilizing all its forces to defeat the legislation.

The anti-EFCA war had its intended impact. In addition to Specter's flip-flop, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson has called for compromise that would gut the legislation. Even one of EFCA's authors, Sen. Tom Harkin, has now said he would open up the bill to changes.

EFCA isn't dead yet--but it is in danger. There's still time to shift things, but that time is growing short.........................

[redqueen]

22. Thanks, ProSense.

[Cha]

23. PS, Thanks!

For bringing the facts.

[AtomicKitten]

24. He's always supported EFCA.

Just not enough apparently in the view of some. It's not like he's got a clusterf*ck to sort out or anything.