Employee Free Choice Act. Is it dead?

Morning Folks

One of the issues that we believe should be the law is the Employee Free Choice Act, the right of folks to form unions or not; as the workers wish and not the company. We have supported this for some time and worked towards getting it passed.

Slam dunk said some of the politicans running for election last cycle. However, not so as of yet and some are proclaiming the act dead in its tracks.

This is interesting story from Wall Street Journal reproduced here for comment by the group. This is one of the May agenda items:

------------------------------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124035645604940949.html

APRIL 22, 2009 Card Check Is Dead
Some Democrats only care about labor's money.
By THOMAS FRANK
Article

It has been three hard months of political exile for those on the right, a time
for them to count their grievances and dress their outrage in the trappings of
centuries past. Some have donned colonial outfits to stage tea parties. Others
have found the 1860s more to their taste, reviving the fiery language of
secession fever.

But they can all take heart from one development in the nation's capital. Good
old K Street, where the big tea party never stopped, has all but halted
organized labor's effort to make it easier for workers to unionize.

After massive lobbying both by labor and by business, it appears that the
Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which, as it now stands, would allow workers to
organize in many cases merely by signing cards instead of holding elections,
will not have the 60 votes required to get past a Republican filibuster in the
Senate.

Now, to be pro-labor is to resign yourself to years of failures and defeats,
with few tea parties along the way for consolation. Even so, the setback on EFCA
has to be a bitter one. Union members worked hard to elect Barack Obama and the
Democratic Congress, as they did to put Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton in the
White House. And now, just as in those previous two periods of Democratic
governance, labor's friends are having trouble enacting basic labor-law reforms.

To understand why we need new rules governing unionization, look no further than
yesterday's New York Times, where Steven Greenhouse told the story of a
Louisville, Ky., hospital whose nurses tried to form a union but failed after
they were reportedly threatened with losing their benefits among other things.

Such practices are commonplace and well-documented by Human Rights Watch and
others. But labor's case never seemed to hit home. Instead, conservatives have
carried the day, playing on lurid stereotypes to hint that intimidation by
unions is the real worry and that EFCA spells the end of secret ballots in the
workplace and hence of democracy itself.

Before I go on, I should acknowledge that this whole thing might be a clever bit
of jiu-jitsu by the unions. After all, the mere threat of EFCA has turned
business almost Soviet in its feigned concern for the proletariat. The Chamber
of Commerce is now exhorting the public to "stand up for workers' rights,"
running a "workforce freedom airlift," and, along with other trade associations,
supporting groups with names like "Coalition for a Democratic Workplace" and
"Workforce Fairness Institute."

EFCA's supporters may simply drop their bill's most controversial provisions,
get some compromise measure passed, and spend the next 20 years reminding
corporate America of the days when it was touchingly committed to "workers'
rights" and a "democratic workplace."

If only. The sole clever reversal we have seen so far has been the familiar one
where Democrats torpedo the most trustworthy member of their coalition.

Why does labor always get it in the neck?

First, there are those Democrats who don't care much for labor to begin with.
Then there is the wide spectrum of Democratic donors and supporters who simply
don't understand the problems of blue-collar life. They might dislike the
religious right, but they didn't give money to Democratic political campaigns to
increase union membership.

Or maybe it's just the money. Consider the lineup of lobbyists that retail giant
Wal-Mart has assembled to make its case against EFCA. According to lobbying
disclosure forms filed with the House and Senate we find that Wal-Mart's
lobbyists include Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti (which employs former presidential
candidate John Kerry's liaison to Congress during the 2004 campaign), a former
legislative director for Rahm Emanuel, and a former assistant to Arkansas
Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

Wal-Mart has also secured, according lobbying disclosure forms filed with
Congress, the services of Tony Podesta, of the Podesta Group, one of the hottest
lobby shops in Democratic D.C. Mr. Podesta is joined in pushing Wal-Mart's views
on EFCA by a former assistant to Democrat Mark Pryor, the other senator from
Arkansas.

The real standout on Wal-Mart's labor-issues roster, though, is D+P Creative
Strategies, which wears its liberalism as proudly as last week's tax protestors
did their three-cornered hats. According to its Web site, D+P "highlights
partnership, shared benefits, and a commitment to advancing social justice
goals." The disclosure form for its Wal-Mart EFCA activities lists a former
assistant to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. The bio of its principal, Ingrid
Duran, who is also listed as a Wal-Mart lobbyist, declares that the firm's
mission is "to increase the role of corporate, legislative and philanthropic
efforts in addressing the concerns of Latinos, women, and gay, lesbian, bisexual
and transgender (GLBT) communities."

Maybe the day will come when those communities are correctly addressed by
corporations and the rest. But when their "concerns" turn in the direction of
bargaining with their employers, they're on their own.

Write to thomas@wsj.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the act is dead, coupled with the assult on the UAW; not a banner 100 days for labor. Take that some of our allies have flipped on the single payer health care issue, not a good 100 days. Take that Chrysler will be Fiat, more American stuff oversea adventure, not a good 100 days.
That the steelmills on the eastside are still closed and not producing steel for rebuilding the infrastructure of the land, not a good 100 days for labor.

Perhaps labor should "rethink" support for administration and the democratic party in general in the upcoming elections? Dems, take notice: most elections in Missouri are won or lost with less than 25,000 votes. If labor (or even the retiree labor folks) start switching support from say the dems to green, republicans will win and win big for Missouri next election.