Many people have speculated that EFCA is as good as dead for 2010 as Scott Brown became the 41st Republican, giving the GOP enough votes to filibuster any legislation should they all vote together (once he is seated). There also appears to be little sentiment on Capitol Hill- especially among Democrats in difficult re-election battles- to deal with controversial measures such as the Employee Free Choice Act.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Unions Still Claim Confidence In EFCA Passing
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
EFCA In A Scott Brown World?
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Ever Been to Onaway, Michigan?
Ever been to Onaway, Michigan? Don't feel bad neither have 95% of the UAW members. Onaway, Michigan is in the Northern tip of Michigan, a stone's throw (across Lake Huron) from Canada. Monday, January 11, 2010
Labor Leaders Push For EFCA in 2010
We have seen two things through the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency that tend to contradict each other. On the one hand, labor leaders such as Andy Stern and Richard Trumka have been some of the most active guests at
Their happy face on EFCA generally revolves around “it’s coming soon.” With the Democrats deciding to spend most of 2009 on healthcare reform legislation, labor leaders said EFCA was next.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
House Republicans Voice Opposition to Proposed NMB Labor Law Change
Thirty-one House Republicans signed a letter addressed to National Mediation Board Chairwoman Elizabeth Dougherty expressing their opposition to changing union election procedures for airline and railroad personnel. The proposed law would allow a union to be voted in if just a majority of those voting approve of it. Currently, a majority of the bargaining unit has to support it for the union to be recognized.
Dear Chairman Dougherty and Members of the Board:
We are writing in strong opposition to the Board’s proposed rule to modify a 75 year policy and legal precedent contained in the Railway Labor Act (RLA) in order to allow union representation in circumstances where a majority of the workers do not wish to join a union.
The current longstanding voting rules are well grounded in the unique language of the RLA. The law does not refer to a majority of “voters”. It says that a majority of the workers in a class or craft must vote for a union for it to be certified. The decision on the right to join a union belongs to a majority of workers, not to the company, not to the government and certainly not to the union. Under the Board’s proposal a small minority of a work group could impose union representation on the majority. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the current majority rule voting procedure used by the NMB.
Unlike the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, once it is certified, a union might never have to stand for reelection because the NMB voting rules do not have a voting process that allows employees to petition for decertification. We understand that the Board has failed to consider various requests to include this change in new voting rules. Clearly, in its present form the Board proposal violates the rights of workers who choose not to purchase the services of a labor union.
We have concluded that this proposed voting rule change is quite similar to the approach contained in the Employee Free Choice Act. It is a politically motivated decision that tilts airline and rail representation elections in the favor of organized labor. This decision is too important to be decided by two appointed and unelected Democrats who have chosen to ignore legal and policy precedents that have governed representation rules for airline and rail employees for more than 75 years.
We firmly believe that the Board does not have the legal authority to change the majority rule representation requirement and that any changes should be made by Congress. We urge you to withdraw the proposed rule.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
EFCA in 2010?
Rosenthal based this on the theory that Democrats will need labor’s support in the mid-term elections, and this is the bill that will energize the traditional ally.
Of course, the flip side of the argument is that Democrats were forced to take a number of controversial votes in 2009 and may not have the appetite to do so in the election year. This specifically includes Democrats in potentially competitive elections such as Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, Michael Bennet in Colorado and Byron Dorgan in North Dakota. Several other Democrats- with and without upcoming elections- have also expressed reservations.
Nancy Pelosi has already gone on the record to say that any controversial vote- such as EFCA- will need to pass through the Senate first as she doesn’t want to ask members of the House to make these difficult votes only to see bills die in the Senate.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
House GOP Warns Of Possible ‘Backdoor’ For EFCA
Here is what Klein said:
To this date, Republicans have succeeded in preventing EFCA from becoming law, but the bill’s legislative fate may not even matter if Obama gets several controversial nominees to the labor panel confirmed.Here is what the GOP said in their press release:
Currently, there are only two members on the five-member NRLB -- one is a Republican and the other a Democrat. To tilt the balance of the board, Obama tapped two union lawyers (Craig Becker and Mark Pearce). He also appointed a Republican Senate staffer, Brian E. Hayes, in hopes it would dissuade Republican senators from blocking the other two.
Becker, a longtime labor activist…wrote a law review article arguing that the major aims of EFCA could be achieved through rulings by the regulatory body to which Obama has appointed him.
It sure seems convenient for union leadership to have friends on the inside who can make their wishes come true without bothering to get the approval of Congress or the American people. Unfortunately, this backdoor to enacting “card check” would still spell trouble for our economy and cost jobs at a time when millions of Americans are out of work. Rather than getting clever with its approach to achieving EFCA standards, the Administration should abandon this item on its job-killing agenda.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Secretary Solis Comments On EFCA
She offered this brief statement: “The president and I are both on the record that we support the Employee Free Choice Act. It's now up to the Congress.”
Nothing new there and nothing we did not know. She did make a point of saying it was up to the Congress which may give the indication that she- and the president- would oppose a move to institute its provisions via the unelected National Labor Relations Board.
Monday, December 7, 2009
38 Democratic Senators Voice Support for Amending Railway Labor Act
The National Mediation Board will be having a hearing today on the proposed rule change today, but it is widely believed they will approve the changes as the Democrats now have a majority on the board.
Former Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa said this about his support for the change: “This reform lets workers choose a union the same way they choose the president of the United States.” I thought that was rather ironic considering the support from Hoffa and labor for card check- which would reverse a policy in place that lets workers vote in a union election the same way they do for president.
Also of interest was the list of Senators who added their show of support. There were no Senators who are considered vulnerable in the 2010 election nor were there any Senators who are on the fence regarding EFCA. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) joined the list, but he is positing himself to win favor with the liberal base as he faces a difficult race in the Democratic primary.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Andy Stern: 2010 or Bust for EFCA
Stern said:
"The Democrats really have a historic and decisive moment, for anybody who runs a business there are moments where you sort of make big choices. They have 60 votes for the first time and probably the last time they're gonna have it. They have to decide if they are an army of one or an army of 60."Stern challenged Democrats saying EFCA’s passage was “a question of whether they (Democrats) can act as a functioning, effective team.”
Stern then sounded a pessimistic tone saying, “I wouldn't bet with them,” with respect to the Democrats being able to move forward with the legislation.
