This is the second installment in a three-part series on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). The third and final installment will be published next Wednesday on Global Investment Watch.
A Dress Rehearsal for the Big Day
In March of 2007, organized labor forced a dry-run on its top legislative agenda – comprehensive labor law reform. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) handily 241 to 185 (bill H.R. 800). The House voted pretty much along party lines with only two southern democrats “dissenting” (Dan Boren of Oklahoma and Gene Taylor of Mississippi). In the Senate, the bill met more opposition as it was filibustered successfully after only 51 Senators voted for cloture, nine less than the required 60 (note: one Democrat, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, was absent so they were really only eight away). Truth be told, the legislation had little chance of making it through Senate then. Plus, President Bush would have vetoed it anyway.
What that 2007 vote did, however, was to shape labor’s money spending strategy for the 2008 election cycle. Namely, that dress rehearsal helped the AFL-CIO’s political affairs department pinpoint precisely who could be counted on to back EFCA, who opposes it outright, and who is still on the fence. Now that Democrats are coming off successful election victories at virtually all levels of state and federal government, the playing field is very different. Both the Senate and the House have many more Democrats than they did in 2007 and the battle lines look far more favorable for passage of EFCA than they did just a few months ago. Most importantly, labor now has an apparent ally for working people in the Office of the President.
At present, organized labor seems within tortuous reach of having the required votes in the Senate to pass EFCA (the bill is safe in the House). In November, the Democratic party picked up eight seats in the Senate (Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia, and – for now – Minnesota). That gets them to the 60 necessary to avoid a filibuster. So passage is a done deal, right? Not so fast.
Democrats are in danger of losing at least one previous “for” vote in Arkansas’ Blanche Lincoln. Public reports indicate that she is clearly wavering. There are three reasons for this. First, she hails from a state which has historically low unionization. Second, the small town of Bentonville, Arkansas is the headquarters of Wal-Mart, a company that is one the biggest corporate spenders in opposition of EFCA (and unions more generally) and a political heavyweight in the state (note: Wal-Mart has been a donor to her campaigns). Third, Lincoln is up for re-election in 2010 so she can be held accountable (by either side) by her vote. If Lincoln leaves the caucus on EFCA, the Democrats’ task will become a tad more difficult. This means that Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania – the lone Republican Senator who voted for EFCA in 2007 – will become a central figure in how this legislative drama will unfold. Most observers think his vote is safe since Specter has received Democrat-like support from unions in the past.
If they lose Lincoln and can keep Specter, then they are potentially one vote short of 60. This means they may need to convert one Republican to their side. Possible candidates? George Voinovich from Ohio (doubtful) or Maine’s moderate lawmakers Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (more probable). Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski is a wild card since she could be facing a fight from Palin in 2010 for which she will need union-backing to win (Alaska is a comparatively high unionized state).
Also keep in mind that four Democrat seats in the Senate have changed hands as a result of Obama’s capture of the White House. Michael Bennet of Colorado (replacing Ken Salazar who is the new Secretary of Interior), Kirsten Gillibrand of New York (filling Hillary Clinton’s seat), Roland Burris of Illinois (appointed by Rod Blagojevich to Obama’s vacated seat) and Ted Kaufman of Delaware (stepping in for Vice President Joe Biden). These four appointments add another layer of complexity into the legislative outlook for EFCA. The political website FiveThirty Eight cautioned on December 22: “And here we run into another sort of numbers game: the margin of error between the passage and failure of the bill in the Senate is going to be very, very thin.”
While the new administration and congressional leadership have repeatedly reiterated their support for EFCA, the leading Democrats in Congress have yet to signal precisely when the bill will be brought up for a vote, which is a worrying sign for some in labor. It was initially speculated months ago that labor law reform could get included as part of a new stimulus package, but with Congress taking up that issue this week it appears this avenue is no longer open.
President Obama himself has expressed strong support for unions, and EFCA in particular, while on the campaign trail:
“If a majority of workers want a union, they should get a union. It’s that simple. We need to stand up to the business lobby and pass the Employee Free Choice Act. That’s why I’ve been fighting for it in the Senate and that’s why I’ll make it the law of the land when I’m president of the United States” – March 3, 2008
However, he has declined to specify a timetable. And his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, already a potential lightning rod among left-wing progressives for his coziness with the corporate community and his centrist political views, has declined to say whether it will be part of the president’s legislative program in the first 100 days (note: he did support it as a member of the House in 2007). The reality is that the Employee Free Choice Act will clearly face plenty of competition among many competing priorities on Capital Hill – financial market reform and health care reform to name just two. Does Obama have the will right now to take on what will inevitably become the political version of a western bar-room brawl? Labor is singularly focused on making sure Obama doesn’t repeat the steps of his two most recent democratic presidential predecessors – Carter and Clinton – and musters the political will to reform the country’s pro-business labor laws.
In 2007, everyone knew that EFCA wasn’t going to become law. That’s what made supporting it so easy; it was a way for more moderate Democrats to make friends and gain allies (and get potential funding for the upcoming elections). This time around, some observers are skeptical as to whether labor can chalk up the previous “for” votes in the win column the next time it makes it to the floor when the stakes are higher. At the moment, organized labor isn’t taking any chances and is flexing all its muscle to achieve this important legislative victory for the middle class.
Stumble It!
{ 0 comments… add one now }