Prospects for Labor Reform?

    I just spent a couple of days inside the Beltway at the AFL-CIO's Organizing Summit. I'd guess there were 500 people there and there was a lot of enthusiasm and optimism because of the recent Congressional elections. John Edwards got an award Friday night and the crowd was chanting, "Run, John, Run."

    A heavy emphasis was put on pushing for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. I wonder, though, what is the strategy for passing the legislation? Let's assume it will now pass the Democratic-led House (even if a few truly conservative Democrats vote no, there are probably enough votes). Everyone assumes that the president will veto the legislation so much of the chatter is about building momentum towards 2008 when the presidency is up for grabs, hoping that when a  Democrat takes over the White House, she or he will sign the legislation.

    I intentionally left out the Senate because it seems to me that that is the immovable obstacle. To pass any piece of legislation, you need 60 votes to break a filibuster. The Democrats will have 51 votes (that includes the independents Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman). Where do the other 9 votes come from? I suppose you could hope for Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, who are called "moderates." Maybe throw in Arlen Spencer who has been one of the less hostile Republicans when it comes to labor. Ohio's George Voinovich?

    You might get one or two more who are in tough re-election fights come 2008--say Minnesota's Norm Coleman. But, if there was any chance of it really passing, how many of the Republicans would actually take a hard vote--and how many Democrats would we lose (like Nebraska's Ben Nelson or Lousiana's Mary Landrieu) if the business lobby, which writes big checks to so many of them, called in a chit.

   Part of the strategy likely involves the 2008 Senate races. Republicans have to defend 21 seats, Democrats just 12. I can see that there are eight states with strong possibilities: four states which John Kerry carried in 2004 and four more where the Democrats did well in 2006 (Colorado, Virginia, Minnesota, and New Hampshire), either in Senate races or other down-ballot races. But, who knows what the environment will look like then.

    There just isn't a path that I can see where this passes anytime in the future. Does anyone else have a better read? I'd like to be hopeful--and this is not at all a criticism of pushing the concept. Just doing the hard math. 

Comments

[tyler]

agreed. while seeing harsher penalties for lawbreaking companies is severly needed, the card-check portion i could see working against the interest of organizing. if legislated i bet there would be an appeals process, and oversight, from who, NLRB? card-check is used now because once the company is beat, they are beat, no appeals...nothing.

[shai]

Thanks for this post. I too am skeptical about passage of, or at any rate eventual signing of, EFCA, but I remain hopeful that it's possible, particularly if we bargain away some other chips. Failing that, I think unions should encourage people - anyone, whether she works at a worksite which is being actively organized or not - to sign membership cards anyway. It would open up a lot of opportunities to bring people into the labor movement. I go into more detail on this on my blog: http://www.plantingliberally.org/node/197

[tyler]

thanks for the link, ill keep an eye on it. i do like the forced arbitration bit and the penalties.

[donald jackson]

If the republicans had to fillibuster to block it, would it hurt popularity in those possible Senate pickups you mentioned- especially if labor and progressive groups focused their promotion efforts in those states (and with conservative Democrat states)?

Not saying it would, just wondering if that'd make it worth it as a strategy. Even if the Republicans stop it, it'd hurt them in the long-run, and prepare the way for a more viable run in the near future.

Part of me just thinks it'd look wonderful to have headlines reading "President Bush Vetos 'Employee Free Choice Act,' citing harm to business." Outside union strongholds liberals don't seem to have much interest in organized labor, and this issue might help animate them a little. Just a thought.

[bigfall]

Don't count noses to answer the question of whether EFCA will or can pass; just look at the fundamentals. Labor is weak, and there isn't anything any worse than EFCA out there to threaten Capital. So, Capital has absolutely no reason whatsoever to compromise, or to avoid a showdown. They will assume they can win simply by buying off or threatening electeds. And if they lose, they're no worse off than if they gave in and said, "Oh, okay, let the workers have their card-check!"

The fact of the matter is that no one outside of labor cares about EFCA, and probably about 95% of union members have no idea it even exists. And given the apolitical, 3rd-party nature of institutionalized labor, it's likely that 1/3 to 1/2 of union members wouldn't really care much about it even if they did know.

Capital, on the other hand, knows that this matters a lot to their interests. The National Assoc. of Manufacturers, the US Chamber, and the Fortune 500 are highly motivated to squash this. They can, and they will.

If it begins to get some legs -- a big, big, big "if" -- then the question is what kind of compromise Capital will promote to prevent the full-fledged reforms in EFCA. One possibility is a legislative correction to Kentucky River, along with maybe a clarification allowing graduate employees to organize under the Act -- that would put us at the status quo ante circa 1999 or so. Maybe they could even undo Yeshiva, or insert economic-striker protection. But that's really stretching it. And if any of that were on the table, it would pull all the hypothetical GOP supporters, plus all the Blue Dog Dems who really like Capital much more than workers deep down in their shriveled little hearts.

I don't think EFCA will pass until Capital sees it as the best way to stop workers from occupying factories, burning down bosses' houses, and establishing workers' collectives.

[jon in seattle]

By all means, I hope the AFL and CTW (how does CTW go down with this?) push the Dems as hard as they can on this.

I don't think it will pass. For reasons that bigfall posted above me. The Dems will not want to go that far against the status quo business consensus. They've already signaled that in many ways, from what they've said on Iraq to what they've said to the business community about taxes and such.

But I do hope the AFL pushes the Dems hard. Either the AFL will realize their insider strategy doesn't work, or at least a few rank and file will realize how clueless the AFL is at the top.

Either way, nothing will change unless we organize our way out, even with the rules as they are. (Yes, I know they suck. I spent a year on the road organizing and I know the law sucks.)

Shai: I like your idea for unions using EFCA membership cards as an outreach/legislative/organizing strategy.

[el cabrero]

However long it may take, EFCA seems to me to be potentially the most significant social legislation in decades. Winning that will eventually open the way for all kinds of other victories.

I would disagree with one of the comments that said no one cares about this outside organized labor. I think it might be possible to build a strong coalition around this like there has been on raising the minimum wage.

[anon]

This is sounding like "inside baseball" again. The rhetoric on so-called free secret ballot elections is too strong to overcome. The anti camp has all the rhetoric of democracy in their hands. There is no real backlash except in a very few districts if card check does not pass.
The AFL has forgotten history and Bigfall has it right: I don't think EFCA will pass until Capital sees it as the best way to stop workers from occupying factories, burning down bosses' houses, and establishing workers' collectives.
Labor legislation historically comes not to help workers but for labor peace (read helping the boss to make money--the best we can hope for is the crumbs). Recently won campaigns like SF Hotel strike where the mayor told the hotels he would no longer send the police to deal with and/or clear their lobbies of strikers, Houston where SEIU disrupted the hell out of rush hour, and even the small Smithfield victory on immigration all show that the way to win is to be bold and disruptive.
Let's be real, if we do get EFCA, it will get as corrupted as the NLRA by employers, their lawyers and their consultants ($$$). Forced arbitration, we have that for elections, how has it helped any workers in the past 10-20 years?