Card Check fading in the Senate?

posted at 10:22 am on March 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Today, Democrats in both chambers of Congress will carry Big Labor’s water and introduce the Employee Free Choice Act, better known as Card Check.  With wide majorities in both the House and Senate, Barack Obama shold expect to see the bill on his desk soon.  However, the Wall Street Journal reports that several key Senators have second thoughts about their support, now that it will really count — including one RINO who could make the difference:

Key Senate Democrats are wavering in their support of legislation that would give more power to labor unions, dealing a setback to labor’s top priority as businesses warn of the damage the bill would cause. …

At least six Senators who have voted to move forward with the so-called card-check proposal, including one Republican, now say they are opposed or not sure — an indication that Senate Democratic leaders are short of the 60 votes they need for approval.

The legislation is divisive and distracting, said Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln in an interview Monday. The Democratic lawmaker, who was previously seen as a supporter, said the Senate should focus on creating jobs and improving the U.S. economy. “I have 90,000 Arkansans who need a job, that’s my No. 1 priority,” she said. The legislation, she said, would be “divisive and we don’t need that right now. We need to focus on the things that are more important.”

Sen. Lincoln is one of several moderate Democrats expressing doubts about the Employee Free Choice Act. … Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu and Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor are among the Democratic lawmakers who have backed off their previous support.

The list includes one RINO who suddenly discovered he was on an endangered-species list.  Arlen Specter voted for Card Check in 2007, the last time it hit the floor, but the vote then was relatively safe.  Even with a slim Democratic majority, it had no real chance of passing Congress, and then-President Bush had already vowed to veto it.  As John Kline said in his conference call, a yes vote was a safe way to pander to union constituencies without having any chance of doing real damage.

Circumstances changed with the election of Barack Obama and the establishment of a near-filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  A yes vote is no longer safe, but will likely result in the implementation of Card Check.  It’s one of the GOP’s biggest legislative priorities, along with FOCA, and a betrayal here will cinch the GOP effort to unseat Specter in 2010.  After all, if he won’t oppose Card Check, what part of the Obama agenda will he not support?

In my interview with Jim DeMint, the conservative Senator predicted that Landrieu, Pryor, and Lincoln would peel away from the more liberal efforts in the Democratic agenda.  It appears that may happen here.  They have gone out of their way to avoid taking a position on Card Check, and that has to have Harry Reid worried.  Like Specter, the three Democrats now wonder whether this is the time to raise costs on business and to endorse government intervention in labor disputes.  They’re worried about overreach and 2010.  And they should be.

Previous posts on Card Check:

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Unions were needed in the early 1900’s because management was abusing workers.

The only workers who were getting abused were those advocating and acting on a desire to takeover of factories.

MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Obama is trying to steer Pork stimulus spending to Union contruction companies. Not by reason of low bid. Kinda the opposite of Reich that wanted contracts to exclude companies with white well paid workers.

The crazy Union resort meetings last week were in florida and secret. wonder why their deal is secretive and the voting can’t be?

seven on March 10, 2009 at 3:28 PM

Vashta.Nerada on March 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Perhaps. Then how about thinking of ways to not motivate them to want unions in the first place that don’t boil down to “…or your job goes to India!”

Knucklehead on March 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM

No, to improve our own economy and to put our citizens to work.

sethstorm on March 10, 2009 at 6:38 PM

The only workers who were getting abused were those advocating and acting on a desire to takeover of factories.

MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 2:49 PM

So the folks who got roughed up by Ford’s security division near an overpass had the same desires?

sethstorm on March 10, 2009 at 6:40 PM

The crazy Union resort meetings last week were in florida and secret. wonder why their deal is secretive and the voting can’t be?

seven on March 10, 2009 at 3:28 PM

So? A certain other PAC emphasizing fiscal responsibility was in the same kind of hotel.

How’s opulent luxury for fiscal responsiblity do you, Mr Toomey?

sethstorm on March 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM

EagleClaw on March 10, 2009 at 11:42 AM

Ltlgeneral64 on March 10, 2009 at 1:23 PM

It swung back in the other direction beginning with Reagan.

We wouldn’t have the offshoring issue be as bad if the pendulum didn’t push so far against the worker.

dominigan on March 10, 2009 at 1:19 PM

Hope you like building golfcart inspired cars as a “contract temporary” worker. They treat their “workers” worse.

sethstorm on March 10, 2009 at 6:50 PM

seth, how will forcing existing workers to unionize create more workers?

Tomblvd on March 10, 2009 at 6:55 PM

My problem with unions is you have to pay them for the privilege to work somewhere. To me it’s a legal form of extortion. Now if you could work somewhere and have to choice to be non-union, maybe I wouldn’t object to that.

lwssdd on March 10, 2009 at 6:57 PM

seth, how will forcing existing workers to unionize create more workers?

Tomblvd on March 10, 2009 at 6:55 PM

It effectively removes the avenues for evading citizens.

sethstorm on March 10, 2009 at 6:58 PM

It effectively removes the avenues for evading citizens.

What does that mean?

What avenues?

Which evading citizens?

Tomblvd on March 10, 2009 at 7:15 PM

It effectively removes the avenues for evading citizens.

I don’t know why I’m reposting that statement. It think I just like wallowing in the whole stupidity of it.

Tomblvd on March 10, 2009 at 8:24 PM

The only workers who were getting abused were those advocating and acting on a desire to takeover of factories.

MarkTheGreat on March 10, 2009 at 2:49 PM

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. None.

asc85 on March 10, 2009 at 9:02 PM

seth, how will forcing existing workers to unionize create more workers?

Tomblvd on March 10, 2009 at 6:55 PM

They’ll do things that would keep morale high enough that they don’t want to unionize.

sethstorm on March 10, 2009 at 10:16 PM

Unions today exist solely to fill the union’s leadership wallets and to act as democrat party agents.

Safety issues are now protected by state and federal laws.
Wage issues are now protected by state and federal laws.
Hiring issues are now protected by state and federal laws.

IF unions are the salvation that their proponents claim them to be, why has union membership dropped to it’s lowest historical levels?

Unions can be likened to many government programs, useful at one time but now they have outlived their usefulness. While not wanting their funding to be stopped…

One last thing. IF union management is sooooo concerned about their members WHY are the union strike and pension funds NOT fully funded? Why, if the member is paramount, is their mgmt. spending $millions on advertising for and supporting democrat candidates?

Gohawgs on March 11, 2009 at 12:09 AM

Comment pages: 1 2