Is An EFCA Compromise Possible?

by: Chris Bowers

Wed May 20, 2009 at 14:08


Since the start of the year, six Senate Democratshave bowed to pressure from business groups and flip-flopped on the Employee Free Choice Act: The six Democrats who have flipped are: Tom Carper (DE), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR), Arlen Sepcter (PA), Jim Webb (VA). The chief EFCA sponsor, Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, today issued an ultimatum to the six Senate Democrats: support a compromise, or I will put the original bill on the floor, and your opposition to labor will be recorded in stone:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), the chief sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, has a warning for Democratic foes of his flagship legislation: Work with me in earnest on a compromise, or I'll put the bill on the Senate floor and you can vote your conscience.

That may not sound like a grave threat, but it may well be. Two of the bills main skeptics--Sens. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)--face re-election next year, and both, for different reasons, may ultimately need union support to prevail. Specter, who tacked to the right and came out against EFCA before becoming a Democrat, is facing pressure from the Democratic base and Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) to move left or face a primary challenge.

And at least one high level union official has suggested that if Lincoln doesn't come around and support an EFCA compromise, she may face a green party challenger, in addition to a Republican challenger, in the general election.

Supporting a Green Party candidate against Lincoln almost certainly won't happen. The executive boards of most unions simply are not radical enough to use such a strong tactic to defeat Lincoln, and thus send a message to other Democratic opponents of EFCA. It is actually more likely that Arkansas unions would support a Republican challenger to Lincoln than a Green Party challenger.

Given that six Senate Democrats have flipped, right now a compromise is the only path. However, there is a problem with any potential compromise. The business groups who have organized against EFCA are not looking for a compromise, and have stated publicly they want to defeat any form for EFCA:

THE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES: In place of majority sign up -- which "probably won't" be in the final bill, according to EFCA's chief sponsor, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) -- a few alternatives have emerged. One would involve a sped-up election process, which advocates hope would blunt employers' ability to intimidate workers from organizing. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) has floated another proposal "that would use mail-in elections." Under the plan, "if a majority mailed the ballots to the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB would recognize the union." Both of these aim to address one of the core problems with the current system for forming a union: the employers have nearly unlimited access to intimidate -- and ultimately fire -- workers who want to organize, while facing little in terms of penalties. In fact, a study released today found that "employers threatened to close plants in 57 percent of [union] campaigns and threatened to cut wages and benefits in 47 percent," while firing workers in 34 percent of campaigns. The business lobby, meanwhile, has already committed itself to opposing any compromise. "Let us be clear and frank on this matter; there can be no acceptable 'compromise' on any issue of labor law reform due to the very real threat posed by EFCA," wrote the Coalition for a Democratic Workforce, a front group composed of the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, among others. As the Washington Post Editorial Board wrote, "That hardly sounds like bargaining in good faith."

Of course the business groups aren't interested in compromise and bargaining in good faith. The entire point of the Employee Free Choice Act is that businesses don't bargain in good faith with their employees.

The test now for the backstabbing Democrats is whether they will support a compromise that will anger both labor and the business groups to whom they kowtowed. Looking at their situation from a pure power perspective, their best bet is probably to go with the "compromise." While labor will be interested in maintaining a relationship with these Senators if such a compromise is passed, long-term there is no pleasing the business groups opposed to EFCA.  

Chris Bowers :: Is An EFCA Compromise Possible?

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Not so fast on the GP candidate (4.00 / 3)
The rumored GP candidate, Rebekah Kennedy, got over 20% against Mark Pryor in 2008.  While there was no GOP candidate on the ballot, those are still impressive numbers suggesting she has a strong base of support.  I can very easily see the unions backing her as a viable protest vote against Lincoln.

ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future

In addition (4.00 / 1)
Arkansas is a perfect market for the greens because almost all of the population lives around little rock, so you only have to run ads in the Little Rock market.

The Story In A Nutshell (0.00 / 0)
Of course the business groups aren't interested in compromise and bargaining in good faith. The entire point of the Employee Free Choice Act is that businesses don't bargain in good faith with their employees.

That's really all there is to it.

As on most everything else, you can no more compromise with them than you can compromise with the Ebola virus.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Damnit, i just lost my long and perfect comment. (4.00 / 1)
Short, inelegant version:

Employers don't compromise with their employees who are trying to unionize because those employees have no power (yet), and no one compromises with people who have no power.  

The Senate Democrats, and the president, on the other hand, have power.  The 60 and the president are not nearly as strong on this issue as we would like, but 50 of them are, they have strong unions breathing fire down their back, and they might have even more power in December 2010 (63 Senators) than they do now.  The incentives for compromise do actually exist here.

Furthermore, one doesn't need the good faith of one's opponent to compromise with him.  If Jim Webb say rewrites an EFCA that is somewhat worse than what labor wanted, but manages to actually pass, he could be in a strong enough position that the still-extant enmity of the business lobby would be irrelevant.  They could put their money into ads and a candidate that said "Jim Webb hurt businesses and raised prices", but he could counter with an ad and arugment that "Jim Webb negotiated a compromise that made union elections more fair and that was supported by unions, some businesses, and the president."  That second argument beats the first, and Jim Webb isn't significantly harmed by the hardcore business lobby.  He would have compromised with them, against their will, by carefully choosing a spot somewhat closer to their position, in which they could not successfully hurt him.

This is actually exactly what businesses often do when facing a union election: in an attempt to retain complete control of the situation, they make some concessions to employees that are similar to what a future union would immediately demand, hoping to deny the casus belli and placate the workers into not actually unionizing.  They move slightly closer to the union organizer's position, in order to undermine his arguments and defeat his campaign.  This is like that, in reverse.  

Obviously, it is not always wise to try to win by moving closer to your enemy's position; sometimes you do the opposite, move farther away, and fight him dramatically.  But it's possible to win with this violent compromise; an embrace with a dagger, so to speak.

And if you don't think you have the votes for the full EFCA, then either you risk waiting, or you pull this move, I think.  (I actually am pretty intrigued by the tactical embrace of the Green Party; that's a really powerful form of leverage that is valuable because so many of these Senators are untouchable in primaries.  In fact I'm pissed I never thought of it myself.  Although its smarter cousin, fusion voting, I had recognized.  But that's another comment.)


[ Parent ]
I think it will be difficult for a compromise to pass (0.00 / 0)
The southern senators have no real labor constituency to balance out the business interests and that probably wouldn't change even after EFCA is passed.  

My bet is the same is largely true for Delaware and Nebraska.  Delaware is where all the union busting people live and Nebraska is a lot like the south.

I think its certainly possible for it to pass, but I am not convinced its supporters are organized enough.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search