Democrats Drop Key Part of Bill to Assist Unions

[Lydia Leftcoast]

Source: New York Times

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.


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/business/17union.html?_r=1&hp

---

Having just read the article in the July issue of Harper's about the obstacles that unions face these days, I'm disgusted. This is another gift to the blue dogs' corporate sponsors.

[AngryAmish]

1. But arbitration remains in - and that is a real prize

Among other things, once you have an election and win then you negotiate. Most companies simply stonewall, negotiate forever. Now you have 90 days to do so, then you go before an arbitrator who decides on the contract provisions. This is huge.

[endless october]

18. glad that part's still in there.

[No Elephants]

43. Thank you for this info. Made me feel much better.

[mbperrin]

2. Shocked! I'm shocked, I tell you!

I can't believe politicians would cave in to the monied interests over the interest of their own human constitutents!

Ahhh, not really shocked at all....unfortunately.

If it's even legal to belong to a union in the next few years, I'll be shocked.

[Steerpike]

3. Ha!

Didn't you hear? Corporations are people too!:sarcasm:

[KakistocracyHater]

57. the Other Right strikes again

.

[billyoc]

4. 60 votes! Gotta get those 60 votes! Donate TODAY!

Suck my balls, DSCC.

Time to choke them off.

[Ian David]

8. 60 is the new 51. n/t

[billyoc]

10. Well, they've GOT 60, so I guess 70 is the new 60.

[bc3000]

38. 70? no no no... they need 80.

[Doctor_J]

40. more like the new 49

I hope I am around when these people get what's coming to them

[susanr516]

26. My future donations

will go to specific candidates only.

[derby378]

5. Funny - I thought the DEMOCRATS won in November

:mad:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. All workers should be a member of a union and all companies/institutions should recognize them

All workers should have a right to strike

[prostomulgus]

7. The solution is fewer republican senators

They force our folks to make compromises like this. The fault for card check's failure lies squarely on their doorstep, not ours.

If we had 80 Dems instead of 60, we wouldn't have to make this compromise.

This is just one example of the many ways that the repukes continue to pursue their pro-corporation, anti-human program of hate. We need to seriously consider ways to reduce the number of republicans in all levels of government and we should do so NOW while we have the numbers.

[WillParkinson]

14. We have a majority already...

So now we need a SUPER majority?

Sorry, won't buy it.

[Steerpike]

15. Hi Mr. Bowden

I do believe he is being sarcastic...

[WillParkinson]

23. Will have to trust you...

Seems he's serious, but I could be wrong. :-)

[alarimer]

41. And fewer Blue Dogs and DLC types.

The Republicans were never going to vote for this anyway but the Blue Dogs are DINOS and have enough votes to shoot this down so the others caved.

[fascisthunter]

51. nope... less Blue Dog conservo Dems

having a majority doesn't matter anymore.... it's been proven.

[xchrom]

9. ...

:grr:

[McCamy Taylor]

11. WTF? Too chicken to repeal existing law, they are going to give employers a little less time

to (legally) squash unions? The unions turned out the vote last fall and put Dems in the WH and Congress. This is how they get paid back?

[MsLeopard]

12. Fake Democrats

We need to get rid of these fake Democrats and put genuine ones in their place. Problem is, blue dog corporate masters make sure there is no competition. Or if there is competition, it's another blue dog. Looks like we need 66 votes to get 60.

Edit - can't spell....

[Cal Carpenter]

13. "..to Assist Unions..." - No, NYT, it's to assist WORKERS. To assist PEOPLE

n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Those half dozen Senators are NOT friendly to labor

They are the enemies of labor. So sick of what the Democrats have done with what we gave them. Cowards do not get my votes nor my time nor my money. Add the utter bigotry of the leadership and this Party does not have many selling points past a smooth talking President. I can get that at church if I want. I would rather have ineloquent leadership than verbose inaction.

[Libertas1776]

17. I amk so fucking pissed off

right now!!! First we were held hostage in Congress by the Repubs and now...by our own fucking party? And having to listen to the fucking manufactured media and the the conservatwits talk about the Dems having the "magic 60" and them controlling anything and everything. Magic number my fucking ass.
You know what a magic number is? 100. That is the only way you will ever get a progressive agenda accomplished in this country. I am so fucking disgusted.

[No Elephants]

44. Better make it 110, just to be on the safe side. We can stack them.

[bvar22]

19. Until some restraints are placed on "Free Trade",...

...effective LABOR Unions are DOA.

Even our President has stated that our Auto Workers must "compete" with 3rd World Slave Labor.
As long as they can keep unemployment at +10%, wages and benefits for the Working Class will continue to decline.

Didn't someone recently say that the "stimulus" was designed to "kick in" in 2 years?

K&R

On Edit: Now at +8

[The Stranger]

20. Fucking make the GOP filibuster. Make them do it and go on the airwaves proclaiming them as the

obstruction that they are.

[katandmoon]

21. Those fuckers

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

22. This part of the artcile should read like this:

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 (READ- PRO-MANAGEMENT).

[SpartanDem]

24. This isn't some major sellout as some are making it out to be

From the article:

Though some details remain to be worked out, under the expected revisions, union elections would have to be held within five or 10 days after 30 percent of workers signed cards favoring having a union

The biggest block to unionization is that companies have months to intimidate workers before an election takes place. Remember the purpose of the bill is to make unionizing easier not to have card check for the sake of having card check.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

45. As long as they don't cave on the more important (IMO) provisions in the bill

The arbitration & mediation and penalty provisions. The right has invested heavily. both monetarily and in terms of political capital in the "Sacrosanct Secret Ballot" & "concern" for workers rights because it polls more favorably (for the anti groups) with the public. Since when do the very groups who have been opposed, FOR DECADES, to increasing the minimum wage, improved workplace safety rules, SCHIP, etc. GIVE A FLYING FUCK about "workers rights"? PLEASE. Majority sign-up would go a long way toward eliminating abuse of the system, but under current law companies could continue to stall negotiations under the guise of "good faith" bargaining (basically all they need to do is SHOW UP), force employees to strike and risk replacement, or just plain give up.

With the mandatory mediation and arbitration process, all that goes BYE-BYE.

[bread_and_roses]

53. Yes, it is a major sell-out (n/t)

[Eric J in MN]

25. They should also be barred from firing anyone during those 5-10 days.

Otherwise, they can fire workers they expect to vote for unionization.

[sasquatch]

27. Fuck that shit, start sending attack ads to the blue dog districts

[fascisthunter]

50. .

[stlsaxman]

28. "friendly to labor"???

FAIL

[Blue_Tires]

29. sigh... doesn't really surprise me...

[Javaman]

30. way to neuter the bill, dems.

what was the strongest part of this bill, has just been killed out of fear.

[robcon]

31. I think the secret ballot is essential to unionism.

This was the right thing to do.

[pattmarty]

33. Then you have no idea of what has been going on over the last 30 yrs in the union movement.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

37. Read the July issue of Harper's to see how employers subvert the secret ballot

:shrug:

[bread_and_roses]

54. You are evidently ignorant of the facts

the Employee Free Choice Act simply gives the CHOICE of whether to use a (not so)"secret" ballot (the employers know how just about everyone will vote) or to proceed with majority sign-up to the WORKERS. Get that? The WORKERS get to choose.

Just tell me, please, in how many other cases our Corporate Masters are so concerned with workers' rights?

That anyone swallows their swill is hilarious, if it were not so pathetic.

[Sgent]

65. Was that decision

made by a secret ballot or was everyone able to see how each employee voted?

If the decision on whether to use a secret ballot, was not itself secret, then there was no real choice at all.

[Zhade]

67. Fuck you, conservative.

NT!

[pattmarty]

32. More change we can believe in. They just gutted the main point............

........of the bill. And this is just the beginning, by the time this gets to a vote it will end up being worse than it is now with NO protections and no enforcement.

[kath]

34. Ahhh, the joys of one-party corporate rule...

[DaveT]

35. Card Check was a pipe dream from the start.

"We" could have 100 Democrats in the Senate and it would still be the same. This exact thing happened during the Carter years -- the leadership of the national unions pinned their hopes for a labor resurgence on what was then called, "Labor Law Reform." It wound up getting 58 votes to override a fillibuster.

I will be pleasantly surprised if the Congress gets a bill to Obama's desk that retains the short deadline for a vote -- and most importantly -- the arbitration provision. But I expect arbitration to be the next chunk of the bill to be thrown overboard. If by some miracle, that provision makes it into public law,organized labor will indeed make a major comeback over the next decade. As a union representative for the last 32 years, I have learned that the fundamental reason why it is so hard to get working people to join unions is a general and well founded skepticism that the union will make any real difference. But if we can be sure to get a contract within a few months of launching an organzing campaign, that mentality will turn around very quickly.

It is far better to have lame assed Democrats in power than proto-fascistic Republicans. But so long as campaigns are decided on the basis of who can afford more idiotic TV ads, the Big Business lobby will continue to control the government. Blaming the politicians is fun, but pointless. So long as Americans remain ignorant enough and shallow enough to respond to 30 seconds of advertising industry crapola, we will continue to live in this Republic of WallMart.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

42. Great Post.

I agree, "card-check" never stood a chance, which I wrote about here

I would be willing to give up the card-check provision in exchange for a fairer election process, one that would:

1)shorten the length of time between petition and election.

2)give equal access to employees to both management and the Union during the period between petition and election.

3)Would streamline the lengthy appeals process currently in place for post-election objections:

If the NLRB finds that the election was fairly conducted and certifies it, the employer is obligated under the law to bargain in good faith with the workers' chosen representative. The employer can legally defy the NLRB's order by engaging in a technical refusal to bargain. Using this tactic, the employer forces the Union to file a new ULP charge with the NLRB, and the NLRB must then initiate a ULP case based on the employer's refusal to bargain, and seek support for the NLRB ruling from an Appellate Court. YEARS of litigation often follow. And all this takes place AFTER the NLRB's already lengthy 2 stage appeal process.

I would be willing to make concessions on the arbitration and mediation provisions, maybe extend the period to 6 months (or more) before the mediation and arbitration process starts. The 90-120 days is unrealistic, IMO.

The one thing I would be unwilling to compromise on is the "penalties" provision. These are a must. A common expression of U.S. labor law says that the NLRA is remedial, not punitive. The NLRB cannot penalize an employer for breaking the law. It can only order a "make-whole" remedy restoring the status quo for unfair labor practices.

This is what typically happens when an employer breaks the law:

The NLRB issues an order stating something like "we shall order it to cease and desist, to bargain on request with the Union,..." and further "order" them to POST A SIGN FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS "IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE" stating (sarcastically paraphrasing) "We know we were naughty, but we promise we won't do it again".

Of course, they WILL "do it again", because the current law provides no real disincentive for employers to flout the NLRB's orders.

No, no compromise WHATSOEVER on the penalties provision. I'm sure the counter to that would be mgmt would want increased penalties on Unions who commit similar violations. Fine with me. I am not naive enough to think that Unions don't break laws, too, and by increasing penalties on Unions, it provides even further protection for workers, which is NEVER a bad thing

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

36. I'm sure the ambiguity of the headline was unintentional.

Suuuuuuuure.

[No Elephants]

46. Could have been worse: Democrats Make Democrats Drop Key Provision To Hurt Unions.

Worse, yet accurate.

[Doctor_J]

39. Dems cut off another of the groups that got them into the majority

Say hello to Speaker Boner in 2011.

[foginthemorn]

62. We may be doing just that--saying Hello to Boner.

[depakid]

47. Framing corrupy DINO's as "moderates" has done more to harm the nation over the years

than most anything else.

[Lorien]

64. and every media outlet is/ has been doing this

the end result is exactly what they desired; moving the whole country to the extreme Right and abandoning liberalism all together.

[Ignis]

48. "several moderate Democrats opposed the card-check"

FU, Blue Dogs. :thumbsdown:

You shouldn't be allowed to have a (D) after your name if you keep shitting on workers' rights.

[fascisthunter]

49. nice dog and pony show though

keep it up fuckers

[Echo In Light]

52. ha...that pretty much sums up my mood as I browse this site today

[Doremus]

55. This is it, for me. This is the litmus test which will determine my continued support of this party

If Dems allow the fucking repukes (DINOs or otherwise) to cut the balls off EFCA, I am so finished with this party.

Let them get their votes and everything else from repukes; they surely won't get it from me. That includes money, it includes canvassing, it includes phone work, EVERYTHING.

To say I am pissed is a complete understatement. And to make mattters worse, to phrase it as if THEY'RE DOING US A FAVOR???? FUCK YOU BASTARDS!!!!! (Sorry, I haven't been this mad in a long time.)

:mad: :mad::mad: :mad::mad: :mad::mad: :mad::mad: :mad::mad: :mad::mad: :mad::mad: :mad:

[ohio2007]

56. They'll worry about the fallout at election time

"I was for the bill beofr
I was against it...."

yeah.

there is a little devil implanted in all the bill details enabling them to CYA.


and the people will understand thier elected official made the right move
:sarcasm:
not

[PassingFair]

58. We need to demand an up or down vote so we can flush these weasels to the surface.

[badgervan]

59. Why...

... do our side's elected legislators always give in, and the rethug's never give an inch? And it's looking more and more that about a third of the House and Senate Dems are really DINO's who seem to have forgotten that they rode Obama's coattails into office. We have to demand more of our reps... at least demand that they vote Dem, and stop aiding rethugs.

[Crowman1979]

60. I might as well vote for a third-party or join the IWW if they keep this up!

x(

[mzmolly]

61. These so called moderates should have to vote on the record for or against

card check.

[Lorien]

63. The media shows their bias by calling them "moderate Democrats"

the entire party, with the exception of Kucinich, is "moderate" to "Right wing". Calling them "conservative Democrats" would be far more honest, but without the fairness doctrine honesty is not what we're going to get.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

66. Could be a "Red-Herring" n/t