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.

100 days

One hundred day markers: A lot of folks talk about the first "100" days of the Roosevelt administration and that is the measurement for presidents every since. Press and public mark this as the first "milestone" of an administration, how much progress on presidential project has been made.

For historians, hundred days is a referal the amount of time it took Napoleon to return to power in France from exile to Waterloo loss and the restoration of the King of France (note: it was actually 111 days).

In this case, Obama is not headed for a Waterloo yet (looks like GOP has that honor so far this administration). However, Obama is not accomplishing much of his agenda in that hundred day period and the congress is splinted into factions. GOP and Dems is the major division, but within the dems; blue dogs vs others and more and more divisions. Obama will have to crack the whip more than once on this group even with the defection of Specter to the dem ranks and the addition of Al of Minn to the folds of congress.

----

For our merry group: Obama is getting a C from myself. He has not pushed "our" agenda and in fact has excluded some of our allies for say, the healthcare summits. Nor has he pushed the Employee Free Choice act. The "on the todo list" of the president is very long and we all have the suspicion he will not be able to achieve much of his agenda. I am patient man, but not a fool; I do smell politics in the air.

Saying that, we still have to do the letter-writing, calls, spred the word thing. I fear the golden days for this group is very much in the future, no matter that $250 check for most at the end of May. Alas, no check for me or a couple others of my political action team. I guess Wall street needed the money.

One word to our allies that have flipped on positions, we all believe over hear at Soar 11-3 that trust is an "earned thing" and we do give folks a period of time to earn that trust. We are not in a compromise mode, and somewhat destest flip floppers, toadys and sycophants in general. We hold our elected ones accountable for what they do and importantly, what they do not do. Obama, has not earned our trust totally; but still early in his administration.

That this administration would treat with kid gloves Wall street folks and then help to smash workers at say the auto plants, anyone really believe that action would be thought highly? That this administration would seat the thieves and murders of the insurance/drug companies at his summit meeting and say exclude the Nurses organizations and other supporters of single payer healthcare reform would excape our notice? We could list more.

Friends and allies, got any explination for the preceeding paragraph? Is my observations and outlinings correct? Again, trust is an earned thing and should Obama keep this course; his grade will be D or F with this group the next hundred days.

Healthcare short vid gives some good advice to Obama

The vid below gives some good advice to Obama. So far in his 100 days, it looks like man has not kept his healthcare vows. Mr. President, excluding the single-payer folks from healthcare summits is politically a boneheaded approach to solving a very serious problem.

Appointing folks whom are part of the problem is boneheaded as well and not leadership for change. Anyone really believe that members of the same country clubs will actually take corrective action against their buddies? Really believe that politicans, whom accept millions plus of campaign monies from insurance companies/drug folks going to negatively impact those folk's cash flow? The theory is that Mr. Obama, you take charge and get things rolling for the American people; not cave into special interests like insurance/drug companies.

It appears if some of the allies of the "single payer" approach, notably Hr676 have flipped flopped and "multipayer" systems in the works. A word of advice to those folks, when one enters into talks; take not the cheap low road for you will always lose. Why have talks in the first place if you are going to roll over and play dead for powerful special interests like drug/insurance companies and their sycophants (no need dictionary, sycophant is a brown noser)