Has The American Prospect unionized, yet?

It would be "a great victory", yes, comrade?

Jim DeMint, fresh off his victory in defeating the auto bridge loan, will apparently take the lead in opposing EFCA.

He's gone from an obscurity to my most-hated senator in two days!

EFCA will pass when scumbags like DeMint are more afraid of the consequences of it failing than they are of the consequences of it passing.

And that means all of us need to raise hell and scare the crap out of Capital to such an extent that they see EFCA as the only way to save their asses.

Obama should try to pass the EFCA separately and before the stimulus package. He should then target the inevitable pork that'll find its way into the stimulus plan to reward those Republicans who supported its passage, and bleed those who didn't. That's change I could believe in.

And that means all of us need to raise hell and scare the crap out of Capital to such an extent that they see EFCA as the only way to save their asses.

This moment in time is not the best to try to scare people into thinking that *without* allowing more unions, their business will be in trouble.
It simply goes against what people can see with their own two eyes.

I believe liberals are seriously underestimating the public's resistance to the misnamed EFCA.

All the opponents need do is let voters know that if this passes, secret ballots will simply not happen and more union arm-twising will.

No amount of nuance and tapdancing can convince voters that secret ballots are not fair.....that's why we have them in all city, county, state and federal elections. To say otherwise would invalidate the secret ballot in government elections.

the question is simply how committed they are to the policy, as that decides how much they'll be willing to gamble on it.

Man has pragmatism actually become SUCH a bad word that this is the only reading of the situation?

I mean Obama really genuinely could support EFCA as a policy while ALSO thinking the risk of it jeopardizing the broader stimulus bill is too high, couldn't he? It's not like anything prevents him from supporting it separately on its own terms.

"Obama's administration surely knows this, and the question is simply how committed they are to the policy, as that decides how much they'll be willing to gamble on it."

I don't think that's quite right. I think it's pretty obvious that Obama, himself, is pretty supportive of EFCA and wants to pass it. But I think the crucial question is going to be how confident they are about the number of votes they can get for it. If, say, they're certain there are 55 votes for cloture and no more no matter what, then they're probably not going to push it, because they're going to see little chance of getting it passed. But if they're reasonably sure they can hold the Democratic line and crack a couple of Republicans (or push it through reconciliation) then I wager you'll see it acted on relatively soon.

Posted by: El Viajero | December 12, 2008 11:50 AM:

All the opponents need do is let voters know that if this passes, secret ballots will simply not happen and more union arm-twising will.

Yes, I agree, lying, misleading and misinforming are the main tools in the opponent's arsenal.

Consider, for example, the contradiction in the above. If a company is concerned with "union arm twisting", and "only wants a fair election", rather than being focused on union-busting, then it only needs to persuade 30% of workers to request a certification election.

If workers knew that requesting an election was what the company wanted, instead of something the company would sack them for, and it was a company where a union needs to twist arms to get 50% of the workers to sign a card check, getting 30% for a secret ballot instead would be easy.

So the only way that secret elections go away is if card check certification is popular, and if its popular, there's no need for arm-twisting.

Or they could pass a stimulus+EFCA bill through the budget reconciliation process, and to hell with the Republicans.

El V:

There's a critical distinction that you missed. "City, county, state and federal elections" are for public officials with real state power. Unions aren't governments or public organizations; they're private organizations of workers who come together to bargain with their employer, so the larger question is why people should have to vote to decide if they want a union? You don't vote to decide if you want to create a chapter of the Elks or the NAACP or the ACLU or the Shriners - you just sign people up and get yourself a charter from the parent organization.

Well, we've already had the "GOP to Middle America: Drop Dead" moment. We'll have to see how that plays out a bit.
The democrats in congress don't give me a lot of confidence, although that will change a bit after 1/20.

By far the best part of this debate is how the Chamber of Commerce became the great champion of workplace democracy. Pretty soon they'll be clamoring for syndicalism.

Unions aren't governments or public organizations; they're private organizations of workers who come together to bargain with their employer, so the larger question is why people should have to vote to decide if they want a union? You don't vote to decide if you want to create a chapter of the Elks or the NAACP or the ACLU or the Shriners - you just sign people up and get yourself a charter from the parent organization.

That would be a valid argument if there were no laws forcing companies to deal with a union once it is formed.

kaybeel, should bosses be allowed to run "Women employees: don't have a baby!!!" campaigns, forcing women to attend captive-audience meetings detailing back pain, preeclampsia, child-care expenses, "parents aren't happier" studies, etc.? After all, employees with babies can raise health insurance rates, and have FMLA rights (to say nothing of ADA rights under some circumstances for pregnant women) that can cost bosses a lot of money.

I'm not sure how that fits with this topic, pesto.

Should they be "allowed"? By whom?
I know many companies that hold "Employees:Don't Smoke!" campaigns.
Also, "Employees:Don't be Fat!" campaigns (under different names).
I also had to deal with the annoyance of one employer as it began its random drug testing campaign. They must have gotten their materials out of some pre-printed coloring book or something. The stupid newsletters showed up in our cubicles about once a week.
I also worked for one company for whom dating a co-worker was a firing offense.

I phrased that question badly. I should have asked, "Would it be ethical for a business" to run that campaign.

I argued all this out at length last week here, I think, in another EFCA thread, with southpaw and someone else. I don't want to repeat all that again. The basic point I'm making is that there are some decisions workers make that bosses should butt out of -- despite the fact that the workers' decisions can conceivably cost the boss some money.

And EFCA doesn't expand the list of things bosses can't say -- it just makes it easier for the workers to make their decision without the boss horning in, pushing people around and interfering with the workers' decision.

FWIW, I think it's terrible that bosses pry into workers' lives with "fraternization" rules and with most drug testing programs. If you think your boss's policies are wrong, you have two choices: work somewhere where the boss has every legal right to make you pee in a cup every week, and can make rules about whom you can date or even see after work; or organize a union and make the boss negotiate with you over all of this.

I think the second is the real solution, and I think that you should be free to discuss that with your coworkers without your boss attacking you for thinking about it. And if you and your coworkers do decide to form a union, I think your boss should have to respect that.

But back to the point of the post: one way or another, some Senators are going to have to be compelled to vote for EFCA while they hold their noses. It could be because it's the price they need to pay to pass the stimulus plan. It could be because it's the price they have to pay to stop workers from occupying factories or federal building or calling general strikes.