Card Check no longer contains … a card check; Update: Stern says he’ll get it back in conference
posted at 12:55 pm on July 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The Senate has forced out the most controversial of the provisions in the Employee Free Choice Act as a means of finding enough votes to avoid a filibuster. Moderate Democrats insisted on removing language in The Bill Formerly Known As Card Check that allowed unions to avoid a secret-ballot election in organizing efforts from the EFCA before it got a floor vote. That gives opponents a partial victory, but EFCA still contains a poison pill that would put government in charge of management-labor negotiations:
A half-dozen senators friendly to labor have decided to drop a central provision of a bill that would have made it easier to organize workers.
The so-called card-check provision — which senators decided to scrap to help secure a filibuster-proof 60 votes — would have required employers to recognize a union as soon as a majority of workers signed cards saying they wanted a union. Currently, employers can insist on a secret-ballot election, a higher hurdle for unions.
The abandonment of card check was another example of the power of moderate Democrats to constrain their party’s more liberal legislative efforts. Though the Democrats have a 60-40 vote advantage in the Senate, and President Obama supports the measure, several moderate Democrats opposed the card-check provision as undemocratic.
In its place, several Senate and labor officials said, the revised bill would require shorter unionization campaigns and faster elections.
Businesses can live with this compromise on that particular provision. Unions had a legitimate gripe about employers stalling on elections and dragging out organizing campaigns, at least in some cases. Those limitations certainly beat the alternative offered originally in Card Check, which would have allowed unions to intimidate workers into signing the cards without any way to keep the abuse from locking employees into those unions. The secret ballot cleanses the process, and as it turns out, too many moderate Democrats agree with Republicans on that point.
However, an equally onerous provision remains: mandatory federal arbitration. Unions can stall on labor negotiations long enough to declare an impasse, at which point the federal government would impose binding arbitration on both sides. Why the federal government has a role in non-critical industries for management-labor negotiations is something none of EFCA’s backers have explained adequately. That essentially federalizes commerce everywhere in the US, with the government imposing wage controls by fiat, something that should concern both management and labor. Unions expect that administrations beholden to unions will favor their side most often in arbitration, and they’re probably correct, but they won’t always have Barack Obama in the Oval Office, either.
Katie Packer, executive director of the Workforce Fairness Institute, which has pushed hard against Card Check, issued support and a warning after this announcement:
The fact that supporters of the Employee ‘Forced’ Choice Act concede eliminating the secret ballot is not tenable is certainly a step in the right direction, but they now need to also acknowledge what the American people already know to be true – government mandated contracts on small businesses without the consent of employee or employer is a total non-starter.
The worst of Card Check has died a deserved death. We need to remain vigilant about the rest. However, as the New York Times reports, it will take a while for Congress to get to it. Thanks to the implosion of support for health-care and cap-and-trade legislation currently under consideration, EFCA will get pushed to the fall — or beyond.
Update: Andy Stern claims that this is just a dodge to avoid the filibuster, and that the card-check clause will return in the conference version of the bill:
“As we have said from day one, majority sign-up is the best way for workers to have the right to choose a voice at their workplace. The Employee Free Choice Act is going through the usual legislative process, and we expect a vote on a majority sign-up provision in the final bill or by amendment in both houses of Congress.”
Keep your eyes peeled.
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
Not good enough. It needs a stake driven through it or a shot with a silver bullet.
myrenovations on July 17, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Excellent Excellent Excellent Ms. Packer. The heart of the beast is gone, but it still lives. Keep fighting.
portlandon on July 17, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Conserning unionization, I have still never heard an argument why it is legal for a union to gain a monopoly on the hiring practices of a company, just because 51% of the employees decide that they want to be part of a bargaining unit. I find it hard to think of anything more un-COnstitutional and un-American than to have the entire workforce required to join union X because 51% of of the employees do. What is the ruling that ever allowed this and what possible argument could they have given?
I have no problems with employees banding into bargaining units, but the idea that one group can force everyone else into their unit, and bind them by whatever they decide, is just insane. I know of no other participant in the market who is allowed this sort of power, save the government.
Why do people accept this insanity?
progressoverpeace on July 17, 2009 at 1:02 PM
We’re fighting a ‘rear guard action’ for these two years, and sometimes you hold off the Enemy.
Is this a victory, or just avoiding defeat ( temporarily )??
Janos Hunyadi on July 17, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Er … that was “concerning”, obviously.
progressoverpeace on July 17, 2009 at 1:02 PM
On baby step at a time.
L
letget on July 17, 2009 at 1:02 PM
I don’t buy it yet. Keep an eye on the lesser-known aspects of the bill and any amendments added to it in the middle of the night. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few sentences added without our knowledge.
amerpundit on July 17, 2009 at 1:03 PM
“Nibbled to death by ducks.”
“Death from a thousand paper cuts.”
“Creeping incrementalism.”
Demand a mile, settle for half, come back next week with another demand for the other half and more.
Skandia Recluse on July 17, 2009 at 1:03 PM
The secret ballot issue isn’t dead, they’ll just hide it in some other piece of legislation in the middle of the night.
Knucklehead on July 17, 2009 at 1:05 PM
It’s getting there, but still has a LOOOONNNNGGGG way to go for my satisfaction… We might have won this battle(kind of) with the partial change in the bill, but it’s FAR more important to win this WAR completely and totally!!!!
Delaware Vol on July 17, 2009 at 1:05 PM
That’s what I’m saying. It’ll find its way into the Cow Farts Recognition Act or there will be a last-minute amendment to EFCA that will include like 3 sentences in some obscure section.
amerpundit on July 17, 2009 at 1:06 PM
sounds to me like this is a case of back draft…..
Keep up the fight my fellow Americans!….We shall succeed in putting this into the ground once and for all!
God Bless
hawkman on July 17, 2009 at 1:07 PM
it deserves little Yahoo! for today…but agree with others, they will find another way to pop it back in..
cmsinaz on July 17, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Further legislation never simplifies matters and only smothers another layer of what is yet to be interpreted upon what circumstances originally existed with some clarity.
Per labor and government, America passed the point of liberty when these two joined together in a matrimony of Big Brother with Bigger Brother.
Back to Basics: Reading Is Fundamental.
The less legislation, the less interpretation, the better at this point. Look what empathy begat, the insanity of “hate crimes” having priority to the supreme law of the land, our Constitution that guarantees equality before the law.
maverick muse on July 17, 2009 at 1:11 PM
I also think that there is anti-union upsurge after watching the filthy liar give away GM to the UAW.
highhopes on July 17, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Wait until the unions are rewarded stuff that is almost Congressional in its bounty and privilege, then there might be a more robust backlash.
Michigan has 15% unemployment, mostly in heavily unionized industries, the ‘rats aren’t about to lose that demographic; they will start shoveling money in that direction any day now.
Bishop on July 17, 2009 at 1:15 PM
They won’t always have Obama in office, but they will always have the Justice and Labor dept beaurocracies.
Which year in and year out, lean heavily to the left.
MarkTheGreat on July 17, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Unions have no legitimate gripes. They are anti-market, anti-freedom and their labor monopolies have laid waste to entire industries for decades. They should be opposed at every turn and no governmental privileges should be extended to them.
echosyst on July 17, 2009 at 1:15 PM
An equally onerous provision indeed. Fully as unAmerican as Card Check and totally unacceptable.
petefrt on July 17, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Its absurd that the federal government has empowered unions (employee trusts/monopolies) in the first place, especially when it comes to employees of governments.
…but I guess a repeal of the Wagner Act too much to ask.
Count to 10 on July 17, 2009 at 1:18 PM
+1
Count to 10 on July 17, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Conservatives need to fight back against this, not just by opposing Card Check, but by challenging the legitimacy of unions having monopolistic control over workplaces. Attack the unions where they live, and attack them now.
progressoverpeace on July 17, 2009 at 1:21 PM
But you’ve got to enjoy the schadenfreude…teachers unions and other unions seeing their pensions nose dive because the UAW is more equal than other unions in Obamareich’s bankruptcy proceedings.
Laura in Maryland on July 17, 2009 at 1:22 PM
This was the compromise that unions were expecting all along. They inserted this untenable (and indefensible) provision so that they could get other less offensive, but very favorable, provisions like the arbitration clause. The unions are masters of creating “poison pills” that they can give up during the process to show how much they “gave up.” These provisions also divert attention away from the stealthy provisions that appear less onerous.
If you ever hear a union lawyer talk, you will always hear them say, “But the union has alredy compromised on many issues already.”
I have nothing against union members and don’t begrudge them the ability to collectively bargin for better wages. I am just worried that unions in general will undermine the competitiveness of the United States. If this bill results in more unions in the United States, it will then translate into less private sector jobs (because unions make private sector firms less competitive in the market) and more public sector jobs (because government is very difficult, if not impossible, to shrink).
RedSoxNation on July 17, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Maybe not forever but for the next 20 years. Barry’s a natural born dictator. I’ll be amazed if they don’t fix the next election and change the constitution to get him a few more terms.
Griz on July 17, 2009 at 1:29 PM
“In these difficult times, we feel it would be a mistake to undergo a change in leadership in the Presidency, therefore….”
Bishop on July 17, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Wasn’t a ruling. It was a law: the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Unconstitutional, unless you believe the Commerce Clause gives Congress almost unlimited powers.
But it was a Roosevelt initiative; he had nothing but contempt for the Constitution.
guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Very true!
highhopes on July 17, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Broken off at “therefore” as the presidential bunker is taken over in a coup.
highhopes on July 17, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I stand corrected. You’re right – it was the Wagner Act.
As for repeal, the only laws I recall being repealed in my lifetime were the 55 mph national speed limit and the automatic seatbelt law.
guntotinglibertarian on July 17, 2009 at 1:41 PM
That’s OK. A Stimulus bill is now NOT a Stimulus bill.
Just a normal day in the Beltway!!
barnone on July 17, 2009 at 1:43 PM
It’s a pity that the constitution didn’t prohibit the government recognition of unions, but I’m not sure unions really existed in the modern sense at the time.
Count to 10 on July 17, 2009 at 1:45 PM
I have said often, Unions should be proscribed. 1824 was an infamous year.
OldEnglish on July 17, 2009 at 1:50 PM
This is highly unethical.
They should filibuster the bill anyway and kill it because of this twit’s actions.
Skywise on July 17, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Don’t make sweeping statements like that
E9RET on July 17, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Of course, we wouldn’t want congress to be voting on the actual bill – what kind of precedent would that set?
Vashta.Nerada on July 17, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Skywise on July 17, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Emanuel to Stern: “Shhh! You can’t say that yet!”
cs89 on July 17, 2009 at 2:03 PM
How long before Obama turns on the Unions?
Follow me on this. If the Federal Government can impose binding arbitration on companies, why not just set wages without arbitration? We already have a Pay Czar. Why should he be limited to arbitrarily setting only executive salaries when he could regulate everyone’s salary?
If the government decides to give itself the power to set all wages in all businesses, and to also impose State approved benefits (like National Health Care), then the “need” for unions is gone.
Someone will same that Obama would never turn on the Unions because they contribute lots of money to him. But why should he settle for “lots of money” when he can take them over and seize ALL their money! Obama has already given the UAW most of Chrysler and much of GM and it should be clear by now that Obama thinks he owns any company, business or State that has taken money from
himthe Federal Government.A lot of people/groups support Obama because they think that they will gain from his policies. They don’t understand that sooner or later Obama will run out of conservatives whose wealth he can
confiscatetax, and then he will turn on his own, one after the other.Who will he turn on first?
Ordinary American on July 17, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Democracy is just not “democratic”.
wildcat84 on July 17, 2009 at 2:07 PM
I really hate these people…
…and all the dimwits who voted them into office.
They are ruining my country!
ladyingray on July 17, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Nancy ain’t gonna let it pass without Card Check. She’s in too deep with the unions.
GarandFan on July 17, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Another provision for the conservative’s emergency pass in the dark of the night recovery bill. National right to work.
darktood on July 17, 2009 at 3:08 PM
The great untold story that the MSM refuses to acknowledge is the fact that dear Andy here is but just one of the former Students for a Democratic Society/Weather Underground terrorists in the Obama camp! The following are only the ones I’ve verified and placed so far with 219 left to go. For your veiwing pleasure, the SDS/Weatherman
Andy Stern
Mark Rudd
Bill Ayers
Beanadine Dohrn
Steve Tappis
Paul Booth
Marilyn Katz
Howie Machtlinger
Tom Hayden
Todd Gitlin
Wade Rathke
Dale Rathke
Carl Davidson
Arlene Bergman
Mike Klonsky
Jim Jacobs
Bruce Rubenstien
Carl Oglesby
…AND COUNTING! All these former seditious enemies of the state were part of the SDS/Weathermen. People who actively campaigned to overthrow our Democratic Republic have been handed the keys to D.C. These goons are now blithely traipsing through the corridors power, with proven enemies at the helm how long can our ship of state stay afloat?
!SOS!
!Wake up America!
Archimedes on July 17, 2009 at 5:03 PM
And this is how they secured the keys of power using the exact methods Ayn Rand warned us of,
The Methodology of Subversion
And the Undermining of Liberty.
The other day Dr. Zero posted a thoughtful, well reasoned essay extolling the virtues of Big Business versus Big Government on one of my favorite sites, HotAir. The argument posited by Dr Zero is one of a battle that has raged across the planet since the turn of the last century. However, the American left has recognized that it has already lost (with the exception of FDR’s New Deal policies) that argument, and has subtlety adapted and moved on.
In doing so he fall’s victim of the old adage of “generals are always fighting the last war” and is guilty of the strategic mistake of not recognizing the precise nature of our opponents today. The former proponents of bolshevist ideology nor longer shun big business, indeed they have ingeniously embraced it and have successfully infiltrated its ranks.
Thus Dr. Zero has missed the forest for the trees, and while directs his fire in the right direction, he misses the mark. Although he touches briefly on Ayn Rand’s philosophy when he cites her in, “When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns–or dollars. Take your choice–there is no other.” Other than this, he fails to grasp her uncanny discernment that the struggle is no longer so much purely political as it is philosophical. Later in this piece I will draw heavily upon Miss Rand’s insights.
When one looks today at those former bastions of communism, Russia & China, it becomes clear that the communist economic model has more or less succumbed to that of capitalism. The argument today has morphed more into one of the sanctity of the individual rights, (the traditional basis of American political thought) and the rights of the collective. The roots of this battle now, however share a commonality with that of the one the raged before, and that is in the rights of private ownership. And it is here, that in the name of “the greater good” that the ideology of individualism has been steadily eroding in the face of collectivism.
This has been clearly demonstrated as we have recently seen corporate titans face threats of populist reprisal by this administration. With these titans thus cowed, the State has arbitrarily dictated its terms. By those terms we have seen the explicit subversion of the bankruptcy courts and contract law in the resolution between Chrysler’s & GM’s shareholders and the UAW, rights of ownership have since been laid waste. And in Kelo vs City of New London we have seen yet further assault upon rights of ownership as Corporate Developers have used threat of governmental force, through a perverted reading of imminent domain to seize private property.
And the assault on individual rights doesn’t stop there. Indeed with the advent of State-Mandated-Healthcare it stands to take on proportions akin to those once only found in Brave New World and Logan’s Run. If you think such worries a bit melodramatic, consider that recently the administration declared its desire to ban smoking in the armed forces. Their rationale for this policy directive is that, as that they are responsible for the costs of soldiers’ welfare by way of the VA, they are entitled to do this in the name of cutting. In the name of Healthcare reform, is it not the welfare of every citizen they mean to assume responsibility for the costs of? Are their proposed “wellness programs” merely newspeak for State regulation of what our own person’s may partake of? Does no one recognize the direction all this heading?
With State responsibility now expanding its reach to that over the human body, not even our very self is to be exempt from State control. Through acts like these and others, all quaint notions of what we possess will have become moot.
These intrusions into our personal liberties did not come about in a vacuum. The insidious ways with which the collectivist’s have advanced their cause, have permeated our popular culture, and seized our public narrative is comprehensive. They have partly done so through their infiltration of our societal infrastructure by attaining seats of innocuous sounding boards, philanthropies and various other not-for- profits through which have subtlety promoted their policies. It is by these means that the collectivists have donned the veneer of respectability, moved their agenda into the mainstream and disguised their subversive intentions.
After careful placement in positions of influence in our social strata, and exercise of uncanny patience and discipline over a period of decades, they have shaped the vernacular of our discourse and shifted the paradigm of our national consciousness. They have done this with a singularly relentless ambition towards the achievement of their ultimate goal. The day they assume the reins of power, with the ascension of Barack Obama to the presidency, they feel that the have arrived.
Once this power is attained, the primary task is to consolidate it swiftly, and then lock in the mechanisms to maintain it.
When Obama foisted the demands of labor upon the captains of industry, backed by his bully pulpit of government and bribery of promises of State supplied advantages over their competitors, he merged their respective interests. This combined the political power of the two and consolidated it with the State. This confluence of a power trifecta between big labor, big business and big government enables Obama in his collectivist quest against individualism. As was so precisely described and ably predicted by Miss Rand in her writings. This is Barack Obama in the role of Wesley Mouch in Atlas Shrugged.
You might think that such heavy handed tactics by Obama might raise howls of protest from our press. But of protest we hear nary a peep, indeed the administration is so confident that it has effectively co-opted our Fourth Estate, that it feels it can threaten to use it as the club wielded by that heavy hand.
Ayn Rand illustrated how this political power and influence over the media is promulgated by a barrage of advisory bodies whose consultation is called upon to fill air-time. Associations of so and so, panels on such and such, & councils for this, that, and the other, these are our modern 527’s. Like People for the American Way, Center for American Progress, MoveOn.org and their sister affiliations, these tax-exempt entities which so inundate our political discourse today sway public opinion to their nefarious political ends. The profusion of which was also foreseen by Miss Rand. This is George Soros in the role of Ellsworth Toohy in The Fountainhead.
Now this veritable cacophony of voices spews forth from our media outlets daily with assurances that, in critical times such as these, action must be taken. That in the interest of the greater good, that sacrifices have to be made. That the emergency is so dire, to put aside our selfish self-interests and answer calls to service of our fellow man. Yet again eerily reminiscent of Ayn Rand’s novels. This invites Rand’s assertion that we need, “just listen to any prophet and if you hear speak of sacrifice-run. Run faster than from a plague. It stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there’s someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master.”
Hard as it is to accept, that a Randian vision of our country could come to pass is no longer a matter of speculation, but fact. In a truly Orwellian fashion of inverting wisdom, the Obama/Soros axis has taken Ayn Rand’s warnings of collectivist concentrations of power, turned them on their head and are used them as a template for our governance!
Archimedes on July 17, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Damn! Some how the bold fearure went completely ape!
Archimedes on July 17, 2009 at 6:10 PM
.
Even in the new world order of Barry “I won” Sorrento?
…Radicals…
scituate_tgr on July 18, 2009 at 9:21 AM