Another former cosponsor who's flipped. Pathetic. But not that surprising.

Seriously, I thought Specter would run as an Independent so he could beat Toomey and the Dem nominee and EFCA would be a done deal ... what happened?

I'm thinking that the conservative noise machine is focusing more strategically on the swing vote districts. While we might feel like the Democrats have an overwhelming majority, it all comes back to what's on the ground in the individual districts. This needs to be back on the front burner for the DNC with their '50 State Strategy' and President Obama's grassroots support network. The Democrats have won two elections, but now's not the time to rest on their laurels and focus all the resources on DC.

Labor would do well to rethink its legislative priorities for 2009-10. EFCA is in the ER on life support, but the MD in charge works as an advisor to the Business Roundtable.

Biz, of all size, is united on one thing under Obama. No EFCA. They WILL NOT be overcome - and they'll pay any price to achieve EFCA defeated

I'd be thinking of smaller changes in existing law that a Dem. controlled dept of Labor and NRLB could achieve. Things like compulsory bargaining (or arbitration) after a union is recognized, or forbidding either biz or labor from impacting representation elections by meetings where the issue is discussed on company premises. Put the teeth back into the existing laws (overruling as necessary court interpretations that are/were inconsistent with original legislative intent).

Labor should nibble at the solution to unfair practices by business because the whole meal has been removed from the menu.

Maybe because EFCA is spectacularly misnamed? Taking away secret ballots and thereby allowing union organizers to bully workers into signing up isn't exactly what the masses are clamoring for.

Fallout from yet another messaging war lost by the inept Democrats (as the wide prevalence of the kinds of lies retailed by Joyner indicates.)

The essence of EFCA, as is obvious from a quick read of the bill, is that it allows formation of a union automatically simply by having a majority of employees sign cards saying they want a union. The big change here is that it now happens WITHOUT AN ELECTION SUPERVISED BY NLRB.

The Big Labor rationale is that elections can be preceded by pressure from the employer. Fine. Target egregious behavior on the part of employers. But bypassing elections by definition means that there is no balloting, secret or otherwise. Instead, workers are offered cards to sign and are intimidated into signing them.

Seriously, I thought Specter would run as an Independent so he could beat Toomey and the Dem nominee and EFCA would be a done deal ... what happened?

Here's my take, FWIW:

1) Previous votes have been purely symbolic, since the Dems were never going to get close to cloture and Bush was going to veto it anyway. The Chamber and NAM had no reason to lean particularly hard on Webb or Lincoln or Feinstein or even Specter, necessarily, especially when their big legislative priority in the 110th (which did have a chance to pass) was immigration reform, and they were busy cajoling and calling favors in for that one. At the same time, Labor cared a lot, and was promising to base endorsements and tangible support on how Senators voted on EFCA. So there were all kinds of reasons for these folks to cosponsor and vote for cloture, and not that many reasons not to.

2) Everything's different now: since the bill could actually pass and would get signed into law, the Chamber and NAM are now treating EFCA as an "over my dead body" issue. At the same time, these Sens have much less need for Labor's help -- the GOP is incredibly unpopular, and the Dems have a big, healthy majority. How much more is Labor going to be able to help Lincoln or Webb or Feinstein anyway?

3) From a bigger perspective, Congress has passed laws to strengthen workers' collective rights under 2 conditions: 1) as a sort of confirmation/regularization of facts that have already changed in the real world (e.g., the amendments to the Act that covered non-profits and hospitals, which followed nearly 2 decades of hospital organizing led by 1199 in NY); and 2) when Capital sees passing the bill as a lesser evil compared to what might happen if they refuse to compromise (e.g., the New Deal reforms like the Wagner Act).

If majority sign-up were already the real-world standard, the Chamber and NAM would be less determined to stand in the way of EFCA. Or, if American workers were emulating their European brothers and sisters and staging successful general strikes, shutting down major cities with marches and blockades (and occasionally setting fire to a hotel), and holding plant managers hostage after layoffs were announced, then Capital might look to EFCA as a way to calm down the restless hordes.

In the end, I think these Senators believe that Capital will be a lot angrier about EFCA passing than workers will be about it not passing. In the end, it comes down to what workers want and what they're actually willing to do to get what they want. Someone else can knock you down, but no one else can stand up for you.

Oh, and James Joyner, I assume you're just spectacularly ignorant of the fact that unions get organized by workers and recognized by bosses all the time without Board elections. It's been perfectly legal to do it that way since the Wagner Act passed. The only change WRT to majority signup in the Employee Free Choice Act is that it would be workers who would get to choose between majority signup and a Board election, rather than the boss choosing for them, which is the way it works now.

The only change WRT to majority signup in the Employee Free Choice Act is that it would be workers who would get to choose between majority signup and a Board election, rather than the boss choosing for them, which is the way it works now.

That's a spectacular change. Unions have been free to pressure workers into signing up but employers have had a right to cry Foul and demand a supervised, secret ballot election. Card check removes that option.

Fine. Target egregious behavior on the part of employers.

Given the reluctance of people like Joyner to support the weak sanctions that currently exist for union-busting corporate intimidation, I think we can safely assume that he's blowing smoke up our ass.

Card check removes that option.

You're lying. The act would allow as few as 1/3 of the employees to petition for an election. You're also lying when you bleat about supposed strong-arm tactics by unions when, as is well documented, it's overwhelmingly the employers who engage in them.

pseudonymous in nc -- if that's your real state -- and Steve LaBonne, you'd be much more effective debaters if you'd rely on facts rather than ad hominem.

A 1/3 out clause is helpful, although it still puts the onus on anti-union workers to make an unpopular stand. Why are people afraid of secret ballot elections?

Whether he's lying or simply stupid, he's certainly boring. It's taken him two years to catch up with Megan McArdle. Now that's sad.

Unions have been free to pressure workers into signing up but employers have had a right to cry Foul and demand a supervised, secret ballot election.

1) Show me the study demonstrating widespread abuse of workers by union organizers in organizing campaigns. I'll wait. And I'll keep waiting, because there isn't any such study. Bosses, on the other hand, routinely fire workers who want to organize unions.

2) Bosses don't need any reason to refuse to recognize a union that even 100% of their workers have decided to organize. It's not a matter of them "crying Foul" at all. They can (and do) just say, "No" because they like having power and don't want to share it with their workers. Are you proposing to change the Act so that elections are only required if the boss can prove that the union has committed ULPs?

And for the record, I'm certainly not "afraid of secret ballot elections." If the workers involved want one, fantastic. But if the workers want to organize based on cards, or a petition, that's fine with me, too. It's their organization and their choice. American business has proven itself, by and large, to be utterly untrustworthy when it comes to employees' rights, and the law should protect the workers' right to make this decision by themselves without management interference. If they choose an election, that's perfectly fine and the law will protect and enforce that decision if they make it.

"A 1/3 out clause is helpful, although it still puts the onus on anti-union workers to make an unpopular stand. Why are people afraid of secret ballot elections?"

This type of willful aww shucks ignorance is pathetic. People aren't afraid of the secret ballot. They're afraid of the company's ability to influence the secret ballot through intimidation. You know damn well that thats the concern for EFCA supporters, not some existential "fear" of the secret ballot.

You can pretend that unions intimidate workers into joining unions, but there is ZERO evidence of that, not a shred. So again you're being willfully ignorant by ignoring the facts and resorting to myths that sound good.

And one final example of your bullshit ignorance is your assertion that companies "cry foul" when cards are signed. Companies don't give a rats ass about whether or not the cards were signed fairly and legitimately. They do it because they don't want unions. They wouldn't spend millions on anti-union consulting firms to ensure that workers weren't intimidated, nor would they then intimidate workers themselves.

Why are people afraid of secret ballot elections?

Oh, spare us the sanctimonious bullshit. Voter intimidation has been the stock in trade for the GOP over the past decade, and they learned it from the union-busters.

James Joyner got punk'd
hopefully it left a mark on his psyche

"A 1/3 out clause is helpful, although it still puts the onus on anti-union workers to make an unpopular stand."

Wait a minute, you just asserted that union activists had coerced the majority of the workers into the union, now you assert that having one-third of workers being able to call an election is an "unpopular" activity!

So, is the union popular or unpopular? If the act makes coercion by the union easy, then the union would be unpopular. You really cannot have it both ways...

Which suggests that opposition to making it easier for workers to organise is not driven by concern for the workers...

"Why are people afraid of secret ballot elections?"

Nope, got it wrong -- people are afraid that bosses regularly intimidate workers, fire pro-union workers, force workers to watch anti-union propaganda, and so forth. Which bosses do.

It is like a "secret ballot" in a country where there is only government-run media and opposition supporters and voters are coerced into attending government rallies and are regularly exiled...

The real question is, why are some people people afraid of evening up the playing field?