I’ve been in communication with the Obama transition team since last week, unsuccessfully seeking an answer to the question, "Will an Obama administration make passage of the Employee Free Choice Act a top priority, and will it use all resources at its disposal to persuade lawmakers to pass it?" Representatives of the Obama transition team have so far declined to clarify or affirm the incoming administration’s commitment to the legislation.
Questions about the new administration’s commitment to the Employee Free Choice Act arose after Rahm Emanuel, who has been selected to become Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff, recently declined to affirm an Obama administration’s commitment to the Employee Free Choice Act when speaking to a group of prominent business leaders. Emanuel’s unwillingness to make a statement about the Employee Free Choice Act stood out because Barack Obama made strong, unequivocal statements of support for the legislation during the presidential campaign.
According to a Wall Street Journal report on November 19:
(Emanuel) was asked his views on the push by labor unions to allow workplaces to be organized with the signing of cards attesting to union support rather than a secret ballot. Mr. Emanuel declined to say whether the White House would support the legislation, but he said the unions are addressing the concerns of a middle class that has seen U.S. median income slide over the past eight years, while health care, energy and education costs have soared.
The Employee Free Choice Act would make it possible for a majority of workers in an organization to certify a union through a process uncontrolled and uninfluenced by agents of management. Accordingly, the bill has become a major point of anticipated controversy during the new administration, where it would be subject to vehement opposition by big business groups like the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, and likely subject to a Republican led filibuster in the U. S. Senate. The U. S. Chamber has pledged to spend ten million dollars to fight against the bill’s ultimate passage.
Business groups claim it would eliminate a secret ballot to certify a union, though the Act does not prevent unions from becoming certified through traditional ballot processes controlled by management. It is already legal for unions to be certified by one of two processes: a management controlled election or by majority sign up.
However, current law allows employers to exercise sole discretion over which method will be recognized. The Employee Free Choice Act would allow workers to choose which already legal method to employ. Advocates for labor say that companies routinely prefer the ballot process because management can manipulate it to intimidate and punish pro-union employees, thereby preventing unions from forming.
The bill faces stiff odds in the U. S. Senate, given the likelihood of a Republican led filibuster, and almost no chance if the Obama administration does not make passage of the Act one of its top level priorities. Already, Arlen Specter (R-PA) is signaling he may not vote favorably on the measure as he once did when it had no chance of becoming law under a Republican administration.
During his appearance before the Wall Street Journal’s CEO group, Emanuel reportedly described the Obama administration’s priorities as:
(Emanuel) presented the five main priority areas for change in an Obama administration: health-care cost control and expansion of coverage; energy independence and alternative energy; improving tax fairness and simplicity; education reforms; and regulatory overhaul that boosts transparency accountability.
Emanuel’s refusal to express the incoming administration’s commitment to the Employee Free Choice Act has generated quiet concern among advocates for labor who see the legislation as critical to any sustainable economic recovery for the middle class. However, my requests to the Obama transition team for a clarification of the incoming administration’s level of commitment to the Employee Free Choice Act have so far failed.
Related posts:
- Chamber of Commerce’s “Buy an Economist” Health Care Strategy Identical to its Anti-Employee Free Choice Campaign
- Exclusive: New Poll Shows Clear Majorities Distrust Big Corporations, Favor Unions
- Name FDL’s Newest Blog about Labor, Workers, and Unions
- Free Speech in Rhode Island? Gotta Register
- Welcome Leo Gerard, President of the Steelworkers
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Damn good question.
Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see the U.S. Chamber spend Big $$$ for something useful???
Hi Pach. Terrific!
This may be stupid optimism, but I think that EFCA can pass the House at least without Obama lifting much of a finger.
Mornin’ Pachacutec and Firedogs,
I have been here long enough not to be surprised by any flip flopping by any Dem elected to major office –
that said, I don’t see how Obama could blow this off or significantly delay it.
pulling this out of my narrow blue ass, he currently enjoys some leverage with UAW, can maybe delay Sweeney and AFL-CIO with some 2010 promises, but he’s met his poker playin’ match in Andy Stern – good effin’ luck there pal.
(And the membership of the Senate is in limbo, so how much of a finger he has to lift is unknown)
I’m reading Paul Street’s book on Obama now. IMO this will be like the tax increase for those making over $250K (or was it $200K, or both?) – now determined to be too much of a burden on the weakened economy.
I personally believe union membership should be the default mandate and members have to vote to opt out of the union, not the other way around
CW (both Labor and Blogisphere) has the Senate as Ground Zero
Not supporting the Employee Free Choice Act could be risky for Snarlin Arlen in Pennsylvania, but wouldn’t it be just like him to do something like this? I keep looking for positive signals out of the incoming Administration and the Congress but I’m seeing mighty few.
Elected Supporters of EFCA
as of 1/08
note the inclusion of Gov Granholm, who has been recently mentioned as Secty of Labor.
The House won’t be the problem, it’s the Senate where we need 60 votes.
Everyone should know that Obama has been 100% behind the Employee Free Choice Act – watch this video: http://freechoice.seiu.org/page/s/obamavideo
Is this Rahm or Obama backing away from the issue?
Arlen better re check his internal polling . . .500,000 union members in PA.
That’s essentially what I was trying to find out, but I was surprised that no one would offer a statement from Obama’s operation. Make of that what you will.
so what do you think Rahm was up to here ? buying time ?, moving pieces ?
I would also point out that the Republicans under Bill Frist pressured the Democrats to do their bidding by threatening to employ the nuclear option of doing away with the filibuster. I’m thinking this isn’t such a bad idea. The only people who seem to benefit from the filibuster are Republicans. The Democrats certainly didn’t use it to block any of Bush’s insane policies but the Republicans have made constant use of it the last two years and Mitch McConnell is already promising more of the same. Why not get rid of it? Or are the Democrats really that scared of being in power and taking responsibility for what they do?
Pach,
Your question was answered. The refusal to answer it is a dead giveaway.
We have been had.
Who ever it is should write a book
This level of betrayal is not funny. Clinton paid a price when he waffled on Gays in the military the first time any President waffles a campaign pledge is never taken as anything but a sign of weakness or lying.
what do you think of the chances that his support could change?
I don’t know what to make of it, but he was in a room full of CEOs and maybe decided to pass on discussing an issue where everyone knew where the others stood. I really don’t know.
That and the other side never rewards a president for compromising.
Rahm is probably asking himself: What would Joe Lieberman do?
The Senate will be the problem. And I think there will be hell to pay if Obama backs down on this since he ran on it during the campaign. Can’t be using the unions for money, ground work, etc. then screw them after getting elected. The Chamber will be mad that Obama is being so MEAN but oh WELL.
I can’t answer that, I just know he’s been behind it 100% in the past, and Pach is looking for reaffirmation.
that’s one of my two working hypotheses.
the other is the spanish prisoner con.
You didn’t ask me, but I think it far more likely Obama would make a weak showing of “support,” make some strongly worded statements, but not whip the the vote, the way he whipped for the Paulson bailout.
Then he would say, hey, I did all I could do, the votes were not there, and there are other immediate priorities for the country to pursue.”
That’s the sort of thing he did with his anemic, kabuki, toothless support of Ned Lamont, while privately pulling the rug out from under previous plans to be part of a large, combined radio, tv and print advertising appearance on Lamont’s behalf.
thanks.
Obama will support it until the chattering class has it’s say then he will use the argument that he doesn’t have the votes in the Senate.
Thanks, everybody.
Here is the roll call vote on cloture to the motion to proceed from last time. We can see that the vote was along party lines with the exception of Specter. Twisting the arms of three Republican senators is hardly the most difficult thing Obama will have to do in his term.
Ok lets assume that you are right then Rahm or somebody else is playing games and using the press and White House to push their own agenda. Leaks are one thing but misrepresenting by silence the Presidents commitment to Campaign issues?
That is Obama’s call only.
that’s been the typical pattern of dems the past two years when they wanted to pretend to be on our side while selling us out. but this one is a very big one and i’m v glad to see you and jane on top of it. thanks.
There have been off the record explanations for the context of his non remarks suggesting as much, but no one would give me anything on the record.
Now, I was not asking the transition team to dump on Emanuel, or make eat crap the way he did over his father’s comments, but I was asking for an official clarification of the new administration’s commitment, given the speculation that followed Emanuel’s refusal to speak about it.
I would note that his appearance before the CEO’s was described by the WSJ as aggressive, so if he decided to avoid confrontation on this particular issue, why did he make that choice, and does it suggest something about Obama’s priorities?
And not persuading all of three Republican senators does not make him look as if he can get things done across party lines.
Non-economist here, just a compassionate heathen:
How can pretending to bail out a weakened economy with handouts to the moderately rich be mandatory, while allowing a staggering number of people to go hungry, be denied health care, not have access to a half-decent education or even a job…
HOW can one be mandatory, and the other tossed. There’s no fence tall or thick enough to hide the hideous outcome of such a grossly negligent policy. But that’s what dubya Inc. has tried to force upon us.
We’ve had that for eight solid years minimum, and it won’t work.
And don’t even dare mention trickle-down around me. I’ve been trickled on before and know exactly what it is: class warfare and unabashed greed.
We personally will never be rich. We don’t ask nor need to be. But everyone surely could use a fair shake.
I’ll trust Obama to care, and I think he has extraordinary wisdom and compassion.
I just hope dumbya Inc. hasn’t broken all the toys so irretrievably that we all can’t move on past the current bushleague self-pity-party to rescue what’s left of this society and the rest of this one fragile world. We simply must share, or perish together.
If the workers in this country stand up, it won’t matter what Spector, Emmanuel, or Obama do. I don’t think any of them would like to see a totally pissed off work force.
What does it suggest that Rahm wants to be friends with the WSJ owner Rupert Murdock of Fox News infamy?
Funny after the Clinton impeachment you would think Rahm had learned better.
full disclosure: I am an unabashed, unapologetic fan of Andy Stern and all SEIU has accomplished. from my anemically informed vantage point, just don’t see anyone mollifying Mr Stern on this issue
gotta go, bbl – be good to one another !
IMO, the question is what will those three Rethugs extract from Obama in exchange for their votes? What will be the cost?
Answer we can’t, the bank bailout money is to prevent the ponzai scheme the banks created from destroying the entire financial system they sold it to us peons as money for loans to help the economy.
Obama has to pass a separate stimulus package to help us and do hopefully all the things you suggest.
OT
Martinez retiring in 2010.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talk…..nez_to.php
That we won’t cut federal funds in their states/ That we won’t close military bases in their states? That they never get another ear mark as long as Obama has the power to veto stuff? We can pay, or we can take we do have power we do have options.
The left needs to make Obama do it or employ the Lieberman option. Target several Dems in 2010 including Reid. Even if it means supporting independents.
As Martinez is retiring, Florida might be a good place to start.
Is he the only non white face the GOP has in the House and the Senate?
Interesting Q. Maybe.
Talk to Blue America see if they are down with that. I am
We have to get better Ds in congress. I don’t see any other route. Third parties are nonstarters under current voting rules & districting in the U.S.
Whether or not Obama plans to support the legislation, “No Comment” is the right answer from a chief of staff for a guy who is not yet even president. A campaign should start when Obama WANTS it to start and in the WAY he wants it to start- not in response to a press question.
If so its big news the minority vote is getting bigger we can use this to demonize the GOP on minority radio.
Thank you. I agree. We may very well be shadow boxing here.
As in Bernie Sanders?
If Pach had asked about leaving Iraq or abortion rights what would have been the answer? I agree its Obama’s play
and playing coy is a good tactic. But on issues like this he should stand firm.
My 53 for you
The minorities are already aware of hate radio wrt immigrants. The Rs had some chance of capturing the Latino vote on the abortion issue, but have completely blown it by villifying immigrants.
And any stage full of R political leaders looks like a group of still-standing dead white men.
1) not everywhere – see vt and sanders
2) the power of third parties is not that they will win elections, but that the ideas they bring will have to be co-opted by one of the two parties (if they don’t want to loose too many votes).
i agree about getting better dems, but this one also has it’s own problems – namely the overwhelming $ disparity between us and the establishment.
so, i think it makes sense to pursue all avenues for change in parallel.
Well, in a state with no districts and 600,000 people, anything is possible. His first federal office was as the at-large member of the house.
See my Sanders response in 58.
You have a point about value of third parties, but consider the cost-benefit: much more difficult to organize 3d party than to get better Ds.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and the Diaz-Balart brothers are I believe Hispanic (Cuban – same as Martinez)
Still no minorities at all not even one that will surprise even the GOPers…all the Uncle Tom’s/Tomas have been run out of the GOP? Things are worse than we thought!
[Mod note: Please choose your wording carefully - especially when using terms which may be racist. Thank you.]
I can see them electing former Gov Steele to run GOP and to showcase him.
well, i think we only have maybe 5-10 semi-reliable representatives in the house and 1 or 2 in the senate. so i don’t see working in the D party as any more difficult than third parties. trying to get better Ds means usually having to win – third parties (or independents) usually only need to mount a significant challenge.
so i don’t see a big difference in the cost-benefit… but this only applies to areas like the NE which are already D and where the Rs rarely mount a significant challenge.
i don’t see it, but fwiw i’ve been told here that use of the phrase “uncle tom” is racist and/or not acceptable. ymmv.
Is Sanders a member of a third party?
“Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist, but because he does not belong to a formal political party he appears as an independent on the ballot. Sanders caucuses with the Democratic Party and is counted as a Democrat for the purposes of committee assignments. He was the only independent member of the House during much of his service there and is one of two independent Senators in the 110th Congress, along with Joe Lieberman. Sanders is the first self-described democratic socialist to be elected to the U.S. Senate.[1] Sanders left the House in order to run in the 2006 election for the Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Jim Jeffords and won the election with 65% of the vote.[2]” wiki
apparently Sanders is not a member of ANY political party
indep.
IIRC, Sanders was first elected to office as a Socialist as Mayor of Burlington, VT
Gee I don’t see the problem with the senate. If Pallin had been elected she would have run the senate, why can’t Biden? /s
The election procedures in some countries lend themselves to third, fourth, fifth,etc parties…
In order for many parties to prosper- the rules allocate at least some seats on the basis of the percentage of the national vote collected- so even a party that gets a few percent of the vote can have a few seats.
In the US, minority parties usually end up with zero seats…
In other countries, coalitions are formed AFTER the elections- here they are formed PRIOR to the election- and less transparently.
Political power among minority views comes from being a well organized and funded “wing” of a national party. Labor is such a wing, as is the religious right. They have enough power to gain a seat at the table as the real agenda for a winning administration or candidate is being designed.
EFCA is not an issue of “better Ds” the way that FISA was or the bailout was. It does not involve fear, and most of the Democratic congresscritters have benefitted from union support. The things Rahm has mentioned in the aforesaid are all issues where Obama will have to put in some work both to come up with a solution to the problem and get a majority of Ds on board.
I think that even in solidly blue areas primarying a candidate on the basis of one or two netroots issues is better than a third party. The third party will have to differentiate themselves from the Democratic Party on more than one or two issues and will face the questions of organization and money.
And I didn’t read what selise said about third parties not having to win. Point taken.
This bill is THE line in the sand for me. Unionism is The antidote to both corporatism and facism.