- ‹ previous
- 1114 of 2720
- next ›
Specter and EFCA
A few weeks ago Arlen Specter announced that he would oppose the Employee Free Choice Act (aka "card check"), labor's top legislative priority. But now that he's a Democrat, what will he do? Jon Chait speculates:
Specter says he’ll still oppose EFCA, but I have trouble seeing him really maintain that stance. He has to make it through a Democratic primary now. That’s very hard to do in Pennsylvania when the AFL-CIO is out for your blood.
Specter’s most likely play is to stay formally opposed to EFCA, but support a compromise along the lines of what some moderate Democrats might favor. He certainly can’t risk being the decisive anti-EFCA vote. Democrats in the Senate may be offering him institutional support in the primary, but primaries tend to be low-turnout operations, and Specter is going to have to work his way into the favor of the partisan Democratic base.
I think that's probably right. Specter won't completely flip-flop, but there was some wiggle room in his statement announcing opposition to EFCA. Even without changing his position on secret ballots, then, I could see him working with a few conservative Dems and moderate Republicans to construct a compromise bill that pretty effectively boosts his labor bona fides. After all, the current version of EFCA is almost certainly dead in the water (and was likely dead before Specter announced his oppostion), so gaining support for even a watered down version would allow him to position himself as the guy who rescued EFCA and got half a loaf where there was nothing previously.
It might not work, of course, but it's probably worth a try for him. I wouldn't be surprised to see him give it a go.
Coleman should learn . . .
that the best time to jump is after the wind changes. You don't jump before the change and have it hit you in the face.
Tripp
Specter said flatly
at his press conf today that he not only was still very much opposed to EFCA, but that he would not vote for cloture on it, either. Perhaps he can wiggle that into supporting or not opposing some modification of it, but that would be a pretty pretzel-like trick even for Specter.
60% super-majority sign-up
60% super-majority sign-up will still get 99% success rate compared to 50%.
political victory of Democrats over Republicans means nothing
A political victory of Democrats over Republicans in the Senate translates into nothing constructive for the people. Specter's corporate constituency will still be served.
gyrfalcon hits a good point
gyrfalcon hits a good point -- we don't need his vote for legislation, just for cloture. People seem to be missing this important detail (not for this issue, but in general).
PS -- Kevin, as much as I enjoy you, I come here less and less -- I hate this site.
tpx, I acknowledge our corporate masters
but it is not totally fair to compare dems to reps. Sure, they both bow to corporate control, but aside from that they have their differences.
Until the revolution there is not much more we can do.
Tripp
I say, let him take credit
I say, let him take credit for axing card check. It's not that important to the bill anyway, so he can just say that card check was what he really opposed.
learn to projectile ...
It is totally fair to compare dems to reps. Sen. Specter is now a Democratic senator. Yesterday he was a Republican senator. Not too long ago Sen. Spector, the Republican, facilitated the appointments of Roberts and Alito to the SC. Today the Democratic Specter is going to solve the Democratic majority's cloture problem, but those Republican corporate flunkies still sit on the SC and card check is no closer to passing.
One thing we can do is learn to projectile vomit on Democrats who are Republicans.
"One thing we can do is
"One thing we can do is learn to projectile vomit on Democrats who are Republicans. "
Yes because if there's one lesson we should learn from this, it's that extremists should definately viciously attack moderates in their own party: what could go wrong!
Card Check is just a loser. It's a controversial provision that not even many pro-labor people think is a good solution. And it's holding up a bill that has many very important and sensible reforms to protect workers from employer shenanigans and actually gives some teeth to labor law. There's no reason why it can't be fought for some other time, but it's NOT worth sinking or even delaying every other reform.
Sorry, that should say
Sorry, that should say something more along the lines of "that even many pro-labor don't think..." rather than implying that it doesn't have as many supporters as it does detractors.
The easiest compromise that
tagged as:- solution
The easiest compromise that will allow him to change his mind will be a super-majority compromise on the EFCA. For example, they might compromise that if the union can get 67% - 75% of the employees to sign up and request a card-check process, that is what is used. Also, as an alternative he will probably get behind faster election procedures (i.e. a requirement to hold an election within 60 days) and allowing the labor union to have access to employees on the business grounds
just to note, elections are
just to note, elections are 'mandated' to be held within 45 days of filing at present.