AFL-CIO vows support for Arlen Specter If He Supports Employee Free Choice

[jAZ]

Interesting. I could see him switching. He's bound to lose in the GOP primary in 2010, no matter what he does going forward.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/la...e-free-choice/

The Plum Line
Greg Sargent's blog

Big Union Vows To Back Arlen Specter In 2010 If He Supports Employee Free Choice

This is big: Senior officials with the powerful AFL-CIO have privately assured GOP Senator Arlen Specter that they’ll throw their full support behind him in the 2010 Senate race if he votes for the Employee Free Choice Act, a senior labor strategist working closely with the AFL on the issue tells me.

This is significant, because it represents a big incentive for Specter to switch parties — and to support Employee Free Choice. Specter may be facing a serious GOP primary challenge from Club for Growth head Pat Toomey. If he loses that — or pulls out of the GOP first and becomes an Indy or a Dem — supporting Employee Free Choice could give him the organizational muscle from labor and Democratic support he needs to prevail in a general election and hold his seat.

The labor strategist tells me that top AFL-CIO officials have told Specter they’ll back him to the hilt if he supports their top priority.

“If Senator Specter supports working people — particularly voting with us on Employee Free Choice — the AFL-CIO will support him 100 percent of the way, whether in a primary or a general election,” the strategist says.

AFL-CIO spokesperson Eddie Vale declined comment.

Interestingly, because labor support would actually hurt him in a GOP primary, AFL-CIO’s promise also is an incentive to switch parties earlier, rather than later. Some analysts think his only hope of holding on to his seat is to switch parties and prevail in a general election, something which labor backing would make easier.

To be sure, there’s no telling what Specter will do, and another wild card is whether Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell would back a Specter switch.

Markos Moulitsas, who first heard these conversations, has an interesting rundown gaming out all the possibilities for Specter. This is getting mighty interesting.

[Rain Man]

We really need to encourage unions in other countries, so that they'll become less competitive. It could be our greatest weapon against them.

[blaise]

The Employee Free Choice act entails removing secret ballots for union elections, does it not?

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by blaise

The Employee Free Choice act entails removing secret ballots for union elections, does it not?

Not exactly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check

The Employee Free Choice Act allows employees to choose a secret ballot process to elect union representation if they do not desire a card-check petition, but employers are required to accept whichever method employees choose.

Right now, employers make the decision as to whether to accept the card check results or ignore them and require a secret ballot. The law would take the employer out of that decision process and let the employee voters decide which process they prefer.

I'm not a big union guy, this change in provision makes sense to me. It makes no sense to me that an employer dictates the grounds under which employees can unionize. Just on principle, that is completely crazy.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by jAZ

Not exactly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check

The Employee Free Choice Act allows employees to choose a secret ballot process to elect union representation if they do not desire a card-check petition, but employers are required to accept whichever method employees choose.

Right now, employers make the decision as to whether to accept the card check results or ignore them and require a secret ballot. The law would take the employer out of that decision process and let the employee voters decide which process they prefer.

I'm not a big union guy, this change in provision makes sense to me. It makes no sense to me that an employer dictates the grounds under which employees can unionize. Just on principle, that is completely crazy.

I don't think that makes sense. It should be secret ballot, even after the cards are signed. Why is that crazy? Why should union organizers not want a secret ballot? What are they afraid of? The reason they don't want it is so they can pressure people into voting pro-union. It's more crazy for the union to not want secret ballot than the employer wanting one.
And the union can say, "Well, it's not that we don't want secret ballot. It's that we want to decide." That's a load of horsecrap. They want to decide so they can make it non-secret and pressure people.
The card check isn't a formal ballot. The way I understand it's like signing a petition. It would be grossly unfair to take away someone's chance at a secret ballot, and the net result of the Free Choice act would be to do that.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by blaise

I don't think that makes sense. It should be secret ballot, even after the cards are signed. Why is that crazy? Why should union organizers not want a secret ballot? What are they afraid of? The reason they don't want it is so they can pressure people into voting pro-union. It's more crazy for the union to not want secret ballot than the employer wanting one.
And the union can say, "Well, it's not that we don't want secret ballot. It's that we want to decide." That's a load of horsecrap. They want to decide so they can make it non-secret and pressure people.
The card check isn't a formal ballot. The way I understand it's like signing a petition. It would be grossly unfair to take away someone's chance at a secret ballot, and the net result of the Free Choice act would be to do that.

You can argue it should only be secret ballot. But as it stands now, there are two methods and for some reason, employers have the authority to determine which is valid in their mind.

That's completely wrong.

I think we can agree on that much, even if we don't necessarily agree on which direction the change should go.

And to be clear, I'm not a big supporter of this bill. I'm mixed, actually. But the law as it is now is crazy.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by jAZ

You can argue it should only be secret ballot. But as it stands now, there are two methods and for some reason, employers have the authority to determine which is valid in their mind.

That's completely wrong.

I think we can agree on that much, even if we don't necessarily agree on which direction the change should go.

And to be clear, I'm not a big supporter of this bill. I'm mixed, actually. But the law as it is now is crazy.

Ok then. Take the choice from the employer and make it so that once the cards are signed it automatically goes to secret ballot.
The unions don't want that. You know why? They don't want secret ballots. Why don't they want secret ballots? So they can intimidate people into voting yes.
You can say it's wrong that the employer chooses, but it's less wrong than the union wanting to get around secret ballots.

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by blaise

Ok then. Take the choice from the employer and make it so that once the cards are signed it automatically goes to secret ballot.
The unions don't want that. You know why? They don't want secret ballots. Why don't they want secret ballots? So they can intimidate people into voting yes.
You can say it's wrong that the employer chooses, but it's less wrong than the union wanting to get around secret ballots.

It goes both ways. The employer intimidates as well only they swing the paycheck hammer. And they don't want it to go the other way, for the same reasoning you outlined.

There is no moral high ground on either side.

[blaise]

There's no moral high ground, but to take away the secret ballot (and in effect that's what it would do, no matter how you slice it) is far more unjust. I can't imagine how, in any way, having someone stand there (especially someone with a stake in the outcome)while you vote can be seen as anything but perverse.

[SBK]

Employee Free Choice---hahahahahahaha.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by SBK

Employee Free Choice---hahahahahahaha.

Yeah it's a very Orwellian type wording. "We want you to have free choice. So we'll stand here while you vote."

[SBK]

The employee free choice act is going to destroy a lot of businesses. First up will be those evil bastards at Wal-Mart.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by jAZ

I'm not a big union guy, this change in provision makes sense to me. It makes no sense to me that an employer dictates the grounds under which employees can unionize. Just on principle, that is completely crazy.

I've seen companies unionized in front of my eyes using the same tactics that the unions now want to apply to all business. And I've seen those companies close down because of it too.

[RINGLEADER]

Originally Posted by jAZ

It goes both ways. The employer intimidates as well only they swing the paycheck hammer. And they don't want it to go the other way, for the same reasoning you outlined.

There is no moral high ground on either side.

You've never run a business have you?

[jAZ]

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

You've never run a business have you?

Yes, I've been both an employer (not dealing with union) and an employee at a call center where unions came in.

I've dealt with both sides.