So Much For The "Card Check" Bill
I have had my doubts, as expressed here over these many months, about the Employee Free Choice Act--whether it would do what the labor movement said it would do (unleash organizing of millions of workers) and, most important, whether it would pass in its proposed form.
Well, you can forget about the latter part--and we can stop calling it the "card check" bill since, thanks to some weasels in the Democratic Party, "card check" is no more:
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.
"Card check" was the the thing that the bill was about--or so we heard for lo these many months. Now, it's left to the labor movement to explain why what will be left is good enough. That will be an interesting exercise.
We could also admit two things. One, when it comes right down to it, the kind of people labor supports in the Democratic Party are not reliable when it comes down to a fight-or-die moment for workers. Second, the strategy to pass the bill was an insiders game that never engaged the public, partly because we left the campaign in the hands of some people who are entirely clueless about talking to anyone but themselves.
Another option is for some people in the labor movement to decide that maybe it's worth saying, "to hell with you all" and come up with a better organizing and political strategy that does not rest on relying on people who will sell us out in a heart beat.
Comments
Bingo
"Another option is for some people in the labor movement to decide that maybe it's worth saying, "to hell with you all" and come up with a better organizing and political strategy that does not rest on relying on people who will sell us out in a heart beat."
What now?
Regarding card-check, legislatively that provision could be amended to the National Labor Relations Act at a later date. Perhaps after the 2010 midterm elections whereas all indications point to a stronger Democratic majority in the senate. Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all especially when a specific card-check bill could be revisited after all the hullabaloo of EFCA dies down. Personally, though, I am really sick that American Labor spent $450 million during the 2008 election cycle. They should spend at least a third of that on organizing the unorganized or maybe they should really buck up and force the Congress to revise Taft-Hartley? The so-called "right-to-work" provision should be reviewed and the provision that says labor union trustees cannot control more than half its member's pension investments should be scraped. That provision has allowed corporate investment managers to control this economy for over 70 years.
Re: What now?
the "oh well, let's see what we can get next time" (which also keeps single payer off the table) sentiment has allowed labor to be betrayed time and time again. EFCA had more chance of passing now more than ever.
I realize majority sign up is not the be all, end all in union organizing, but it sure would check union busters' power incredibly.
I'll withold judgement on the AFL-CIO's downplaying response to this development, but it makes me wonder if labor would be ready if EFCA did bring an influx of new members. How many compromises would be made then?
In solidarity,
Louie
Re: What now?
Hey, if the AFL and affiliate unions decide to make a stand over EFCA I'd have no problem with that whatsoever. The only problem I foresee is this: if there is no bill then most unions will continue to excuse the pumping of enormous resources into politics rather than for organizing workers. For too long labor has used the excuse that labor laws are too bent towards the employer, which is true, but ultimately that has hindered any real push for massive worker organizing. So if some bill finally gets passed then labor will finally have to put its money where its mouth is.
Yes !! at least Labor still Insists on one thing...