To revisit something I said in my last post, the Republicans are desperate to find some issue or event that can catalyze a coherent opposition to the incoming Obama administration. And that issue has been identified as the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA):
“It inspires both our grass roots and our business allies, so for us it’s a dream issue,” said former National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.).
It also unites moderate and conservative Republicans because they share the concern that stronger unions are a long-term threat to the GOP’s ability to rebound.
Card-check “seems to get a lot of people very excited,” current NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) said Wednesday, warning that passing the measure could bolster union roles. “Unions typically don’t support Republicans, and that’s a lot of money that can be used to run against Republican candidates.”
The Republicans and their core supporters are united in seeing the Employee Free Choice Act as a threat and as something they can oppose without suffering much in the way of backlash.
GOP strategists and party leaders are approaching the issue by focusing on the loss of the secret ballot, a proposition they call undemocratic.
“Many people, not just Republicans, see this as a blatant power grab,” said Ron Nehring, chairman of the California Republican Party. “It’s very easy for people to oppose card-check because it’s so undemocratic.”
Now…as I explained in my last post, Obama has so far scrupulously avoided providing the Republicans opportunities to unite, rally, and reconstitute. How, then, should he react to the telegraphed intention of the GOP to rally around opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act? If he is using his standard playbook, he will refrain from heated take-it-or-leave-it rhetoric, welcome opponents to provide their input and signal that he respects their views, and then go ahead and push for what he wanted all along. Take a look at his response to this question from the Washington Post editorial board:
Q: The Employee Free Choice Act – a timing question and a substance question: in terms of timing how quickly would you like to see it brought up? Would you like to see it brought up in your first year? In terms of substance, the bills that you talked about in your floor statement on the Employee Free Choice Act problems with bullying of [inaudible] people want to join unions. Is card check the only solution? Or are you open to considering other solutions that might shorten the time?
Obama: I think I think that is a fair question and a good one.
Here’s my basic principal that wages and incomes have flatlined over the last decade. That part of that has to do with forces that are beyond everybody’s control: globalization, technology and so forth. Part of it has to do with workers have very little leverage and that larger and larger shares of our productivity go to the top and not to the middle or the bottom. I think unions serve an important role in that. I think that the way the Bush Administration managed the Department of Labor, the NLRB, and a host of other aspects of labor management relations put the thumb too heavily against unions. I want to lift that thumb. There are going to be steps that we can take other than the Employee Free Choice Act that will make a difference there.
I think the basic principal of making it easier and fairer for workers who want to join a union, join a union is important. And the basic outline of the Employee Fair Choice are ones that I agree with. But I will certainly listen to all parties involved including from labor and the business community which I know considers this to be the devil incarnate. I will listen to parties involved and see if there are ways that we can bring those parties together and restore some balance.
You know, now if the business community’s argument against the Employee Free Choice Act is simply that it will make it easier for people to join unions and we think that is damaging to the economy then they probably won’t get too far with me. If their arguments are we think there are more elegant ways of doing this or here are some modifications or tweaks to the general concept that we would like to see. Then I think that’s a conversation that not only myself but folks in labor would be willing to have. But, so that’s the general approach that I am interested in taking. But in terms of time table, if we are losing half a million jobs a month then there are no jobs to unionize. So my focus first is on those key economic priority items that I just mentioned.
Now…is Obama’s response a sign of weakness that indicates a little wiggle-room and lack of resolve? Or is it simply a savvy way of taking the steam out of the Republicans’ attempt to argue that the EFCA is going to be rammed down their throats and thereby unite their caucus and energize their activist/donor base? The Democrats need one, maybe two, Republican senators to sign off on the EFCA. If they can accomplish that, the bill will become law. What is to be gained by assisting the Republicans in whipping up popular opposition to the bill? How would polarizing the issue help win over Olympia Snowe or Arlen Specter or Susan Collins or George Voinovich?
A strategy that makes sense when you have a 50-50 divided senate makes no sense in a 59-41 divided senate. Obama would rather maintain 78% support and trust from the American public than score narrow rhetorical points in a lightly-read interview with the Beltway’s paper of record.
Do you see what I’m saying?
I see it as Obama retreating from the EFCA.
Unsurprising considering the general tenor of your posts. Yet, it’s a failure to understand the proper uses of power and rhetoric with a Congress that is dominated by Democrats and with a Republican Party that desperately wants to use the issue to their advantage and to gain their sea-legs.
Well, you did ask for comments. However, I am aware that I am a guest in your house, so please let me know if I am becoming offensive or sounding like a broken record.
I propose to refrain from criticism of Obama personally (as opposed to criticizing particular policies without regard to personalities) for a period of one year. If you are right, I will post a big humble apology. If I am right, you will admit that I was right. No need to be humble or apologize, just to admit I was right. Deal?
Oh, and this applies to Obama only, not appointees, but I will not tie the appointee to Obama. If I criticize, and I’m sure I will, it will be because of specific personal actions by them. Still a deal?
you can say what you want and what you think. I only note that your general tone is one of great skepticism.
Thanks for the carte blanche. Skepticism, yeah, you’re right. I’m in danger of becoming (have become?) a bitter old man, like an old dog that’s been kicked too many times. I’ve got to avoid that. I shudder at the thought of becoming a McCain.
Still, to respond to your first reply, I don’t think this is a proper use of power. This is wasting power. Obama is from Chicago and should know the Chicago Way. The Machine has room for everyone that will swear fealty, but will crush dissent ruthlessly. The Boss doesn’t make concessions. He makes dispensations. Everybody gets their allocated piece of graft, but everybody obeys orders. No one makes demands.
Obama knows machine politics well enough to not want to emulate it.
Actually BooMan, you have a good point.
But as I have said time and time again, Obama is not going to get an automatic 59 votes any more than the Republicans will get 41. There will be Democrats who will jump the fence and side with the GOP on issues like card check because they believe the argument the GOP has is a good one.
When you say Obama needs two votes, that’s wrong. He’ll need a lot more. The same Democrats who could have chosen to do the right thing over the last several years are, for the most part, the ones we’re assuming will do the right thing now.
I don’t see it. I see a hell of a lot of very frustratingly close filibusters, and the more the GOP do it, the easier it will become for the Democrats to say “Well, we’re doing it for the good of the country” and keep doing it. I see a couple Republicans jumping sides, and a couple more Democrats doing it because of the fucking Village Idiot mentality and the fact every Senator is going to want to be the swing vote and want their own little pot of gold from each bill.
Obama has changed. The country has changed. The Senate has not. Not enough.
Zandar-
Let’s deal with some facts. The Senate voted on the EFCA in 2007. The vote was 51-48, with Tim Johnson not voting due to illness. Every Democrat voted for it, as did Arlen Specter. If that vote were repeated and Tim Johnson voted with the Democrats, it would pass 60-40. I don’t make these types of statements without knowing what I am talking about.
Then I honestly hope those votes carry over.
Hey BooMan – its been a long time, huh?
I’ve been reading alot of your analysis on this because I find it some of the best on the internet. I’ve had a feeling for a long time now that many progressives are missing the forest for the trees when they look at Obama. I have no illusions about him being a radical progressive – but I do see some profound changes that he’s making to the way the whole process works.
This example is fascinating in demonstrating what you were talking about in your last post. But I also see it as Obama demonstrating his commitment to “what works.” He lays out the goal:
Then he says he’s open to REAL input that can advance that goal. So rather than get defensive about a particular solution, he puts the opposition on the defense about arguments that are really designed to defeat unions.
I say he’s good…VERY good!!!!
It’s good to see you around these parts, NL. Thank you for the compliment. And I agree with your point.
Employee Free Choice Now . Org
Educating The World on The EFCA.
Myth vs. Reality: The REALITY is the Employee Free Choice Act Helps American Workers and their Families.
Despite the need for reform, critics of EFCA continue to misinform the public about the bill and hide the serious shortcomings of current labor law. Democrats are committed to setting the record straight and passing this important legislation on behalf of American workers and their families.
MYTH: EFCA will prevent the use of secret-ballot elections.
REALITY: EFCA does not strip workers of their right to choose a secret-ballot election to decide whether to select — or not to select — a union representative. EFCA simply gives workers the additional option of selecting a union representative by majority sign-up.
Organizing For America begins with the passing of the Employee Free Choice Act.
The Employee Free Choice Act is nothing new it only reestablishes the Joy Silk Doctrine of 1949
History
In 1949, the NLRB’s Joy Silk Doctrine established that “an employer could lawfully refuse to bargain with a union claiming representative status through possession of authorization cards only if he had a ‘good faith doubt’ as to the union’s majority status.This policy was changed in 1966 with the ruling in Aaron Brothers, where “the Board made it clear that it had shifted the burden to the General Counsel to show bad faith and that an employer ‘will not be held to have violated his bargaining obligation… simply because he refuses to rely upon cards. ‘If passed, the proposed Employee Free Choice Act would return the NLRB policy to the Joy Silk Doctrine and allow employer challenges to card check elections only when illegal coercion or fraud is charged.
For More Information on EFCA please visit our website and blog
http://www.employeefreechoiceactnow.org
http://efcanow.blogspot.com/
http://www.LaborUnionResources.Org
I believe you are more and more correct about Obama…he is very very aware of where he stands politically and he also knows very well where he wants the conversation to go. I believe the Republicans need to watch for the very large traps this young hunter is setting. More “power to the people” as the old saying goes.
I remember people using this line of augment with Reid and Pelosi before the 96 sweep of democrats in the house and senate.