« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Reid: Without GOP Help, Card Check Could Take a While

Cue the World's Smallest Violin

By: Brian Faughnan (Diary)  |  March 11th, 2009 at 07:03 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This is the best news I’m likely to hear today. I’m also thrilled that Harry Reid is willing to ‘blame’ the Republicans for any delay in passing Card Check; it demonstrates that his political instincts haven’t gotten any sharper.

God-willing Card Check will be soundly defeated, and Reid and the Senate Democratic leadership will hold a series of press conferences and public events castigating Republicans for their steadfast opposition:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) acknowledged Tuesday that fierce resistance from Republicans and business groups could force him to delay action on controversial card check legislation sought by unions.

Reid told reporters Tuesday that work on the bill is progressing, but the measure, which would let workers join a union by signing union-issued cards instead of holding a vote by secret ballot, could be completed before the August recess only with Republican help.

“If Republicans will work with us just a little bit, we could get it done before the August recess,” Reid said.

Mitch McConnell’s been expressing confidence about his ability to keep together 40 votes against Card Check. That confidence almost certainly comes from the stampede of moderate Senate Democrats away from the bill. If Reid can’t hold Mark Pryor, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, and Ben Nelson, Card Check is already dead – at least in its current iteration.

The problem is that every part of this bill is terrible. While attention has been focused on the high-profile elimination of the secret ballot for union organizing, the bill also puts federal arbiters in charge of all aspects of some labor deals. Mickey Kaus has done a great job of laying out just how bad it may be. It’s no stretch to say that Card Check would put a significant chunk of the economy under government control.

The challenge for Card Check opponents is twofold:

  1. To make sure that Nelson, Pryor, Lincoln, Landrieu and others don’t get away with voting to end the filibuster against Card Check, but then vote against it on final passage.
  2. To block any Card Check ‘compromise’ which is essentially as bad as the original bill. Anything that retained the arbitration provisions would qualify.

The opposition has done a good job against Card Check so far, but the fight is far from over.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Rod_Patrick

    Apparently, she’s more than convincing by using her talent of omission, diversion and dishonesty (factsheet vs. bill itself).

    This is a test of resolve to all Republicans in the Congress.

    Expect violent protests.

    • Praying

      Can you provide a link to what you are referring to?
      Thanks!

      Blushing 7

      • Rod_Patrick
        • Brian Hibbert

          This lady totally accepted the statement of a single Democrat on the effects of the bill, while not even considering that the Republicans might have a point.

          Then she’s stupid enough to think that the label on a bill matters. “Hello, Employee Free Choice Act”.

          She even makes fun of Warren Buffett who probably raised as much money for the Democrats this election as anyone. He’s one of the smartest men in the world on business matters and she says he got it wrong too.

          What a tool.

          • Rod_Patrick

            Honestly, I have been “Going Galt” against the MSM since 2008.

            But my wife said that Rachel was already a regular at MSNBC. Last time I watched her, she’s on Air America.

            But take it easy on her, bro. She has “real” Ivy League credentials,unlike Olbermann. That’s why she’s really good in fooling her audience.

        • EdFrank

          The Institute for Liberty blows Maddow out of the water re: her card check rant in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZkvNKy0tww

  • TxCon

    to start harassing the usual three GOP Senators as well as Ben Nelson, Landrieu and the two Arkansas Senators.

  • Old_Crow

    if you don’t mind getting hit in the head by a baseball bat wielding union thug.

    Cut the union cancer out of the federal government, state governments, police departments and education system.

  • fisk2521

    All Republicans on the Hill should be made aware that any action to even consider voting for this outrageous bill will be met with a unified effort by many to make certain they are not re-elected. This unified effort by many is, of course, what the Dems and the left have been doing for a long time now …getting people like Nancy Pelosi elected.

    We are already losing individual rights by the action of this Congress and the President…. the next thing you know they will alter the right of the secret ballot in ALL elections. If that’s what the Democrats stand for then the fight is on and Republican representatives must chose whether they support a free country with a free ballot or not. .

    ?Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.? Daniel Webster

    )

    • char

      then they had better switch parties because it is over for them. If this passes then the USA is changed and for the worse.

  • MSU_Charles

    I have been wondering what the effect of this would be in Right-to-Work states such as Tennessee (my state), Louisiana, etc? Basically, my question is if employees of firm use card check to unionize, can a portion of the employees in that same firm simply exercise their Right-to-Work priviledge and not work under the union rules?

    Of course, I suspect this would be temporary because the new union would force the firm to only hire union employees. And I am sure the Democrat appointed arbitrator would side with the union. But I am curious about the above question.

    • Achance

      as a condition of continuing employment. EFCA as it currently sits does not effect those states that have such laws. It would be well to remember that if they have enough votes to pass EFCA, they have enough votes to repeal Section 14 or the NLRA (I think that’s the right section.) If they don’t repeal it outright as a part of EFCA, they’ll repeal it just as soon as they get more members in RTW states as the result of EFCA.

      The employees in a RTW state work under the same labor agreement whether union members or not and the union has a duty of fair representation even to those employees who are not members. This is what the unions really hate about RTW; the “free riders” as they call them get the same benefits as the members but don’t pay for them. It can cost a union thousands to pursue a grievance all the way through arbitration, and they really aren’t very interested in spending that kind of money on somebody who doesn’t pay dues, but they’re legally obligated to do so. The term for it is a DFR for Duty of Fair Representation. It is common in labor relations practice for the union to let the employer know that a case is a DFR and they just want to get through it fast and cheap.

      My own view is that once a union is certified and has a contract, I would give them both a union/agency shop and dues checkoff. That makes the employees that hate the union the union’s problem rather than mine and it stops the BAs and stewards from coming around constantly trying to get people to join and pay their dues. Once you are unionized, your goal should be to give the union as little to do as possible unless you’re position to realistically make them fight for their very life.

      Closed shops in which one must be a dues paying member to be hired are illegal under US law except somewhat in the Construction industry – and the Bar Associations.

  • barry915barry

    The Constitution is very clear about the governmental hierarchy. This new federal law would supercede all of the state’s Right-to-Work laws. It would simply render them obsolete. The employer would have to bargain with the union, which would cover ALL of the employees. That is just one of the myriads of problems with this very poorly written, poorly named bill.

    • barry915barry

      Kowalski, is that you??

    • Achance

      see my post above.

      • barry915barry

        You wrote above, “The employees in a RTW state work under the same labor agreement whether union members or not and the union has a duty of fair representation even to those employees who are not members.” The key point I think is that we agree is that even if NOT in the union, the employee would be subject to the same labor agreement. (I wrote that it would simply cover all employees). I will try to be more specific next time.

        My understanding is that here in Illinois, the courts have ruled that the unions can collect dues from non-union members, but that in Indiana they can not. (Hence the impetus several years ago for the substantial drop in membership of Indiana’s largest teachers union.)

        • Achance

          The National Labor Relations Act (as amended) allows states to enact statutes that prohibit compelled union dues as a condition of employment. About half the states, mostly southern and western, have done so. They are called Right to Work states. Of course, the unions call them Right to Work For Less states.

          If a union is certified as the exclusive representative of a bargainig unit of employees, it has a duty of fair representation to ALL employees in that unit whether or not those employees are members of the union. All employees in the unit are under the same negotiated terms whether or not they are members.

          In those states that allow compelled dues, if the union and employer agree to a compelled dues scheme, all employees must pay dues but they cannot be compelled to be members. This is not much enforced in the private sector and is the basis of the Beck v. CWA decision and the on again – off again executive order. Compelled membership was long the standard in the private sector but under Beck, the same Constitutional issues have been raised as were raised in the public sector under Hudson, which holds that an employee can be compelled to pay for actual representation in collective bargaining but CANNOT be compelled to pay for the union’s “social, fraternal, and political” activities. A shop in which membership is compelled as a condition of continued employment is called a Union Shop. A shop in which representation fees are compelled is called an Agency Shop. A shop in which neither dues nor fees are compelled is called an Open Shop and any workplace in a Right to Work state is definitionally an Open Shop. A shop in which membership in the union is compelled as a condition of getting the job is called a Closed Shop and those are generally illegal except in the construction industry under certain circumstances and in the State Bar.

          • barry915barry

            tmi. tmi! TMI. TMI!!! Thanks for the civics lesson. I appreciate your insight, and sharing your experience from up there in the land of snow. BTW, it is only 25 here in the Chicagoland area right now.

          • Achance

            It’s a balmy 28 with light snow here; winter storm warning for tonight though. We have a new, fancy Weather Bureau office here and for the first time all those Weather Radio warnings on TV and broadcast radio. Seems they really like to play with that stuff since they’re giving us the winter storm warning for a forecasted five to eight inchs of snow overnight. That ain’t no storm, that’s a little “dusting” of snow! That said, I am well and truly sick of snow; it is almost windowsill deep and my driveway is practically a tunnel. It hasn’t been above freezing for more than a few hours in three months and I’m starting to hear mariachi music in my head.

          • barry915barry

            We had our spell of “gray snow”, now it is just “crunchy grass” as my wife described it this morning.
            It is a bright, sunny day here……..perfect for defending conservatism, and ripping on (instructing) the (hapless) left. Haha!

  • farstar99

    Work with you?
    Like you worked with us on Bush’s judicial nominees?
    Like you worked with us on the porkulus?
    Like you worked with us during the Clinton Gun Grab?
    Work to destroy our own country?

    Seriously, Harry Reid.
    You should get cancer and die, already.
    I don’t say that lightly.
    I’ve known far too many people suffering from it.
    They didn’t deserve it.
    You do, Harry.

    You think “the rabble stinks” Reid?
    You are a festering, slaughterhouse waste pit.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    There is another morbid and ironic reason the Dems want to push this through now. They want to get as much of the far Left agenda on Obama’s table while the stars are aligned. They means getting it ready for Franken, while the rest of the Dems are around. Word on Beacon Hill is that it is not looking good for the liberal lion. There is a small window when Franken and Kennedy will probably serve together.

    The Dems controlled everything except Corner Office. When Kerry ran for Prez, they were afraid that Romney would appoint a Republican replacement, so they set a system for a protracted special election.

    On top of that you have wild cards like Burris and Byrd.

    Unpleasant realties, but reality nonetheless. Coleman, the Republican Senate should stall, stall, stall.

  • The_Gadfly

    For once in my life I want you to pay attention to what Senator Reid has to say. He WANTS you to vote against Card Check. So you won’t be offending him when you stand with your fellow Republican Senators against this travesty of American democratic (note the SMALL ‘d’) principles.

  • chashand

    Are there any reports out there that compare economic growth with union growth? I would think that when unions grow, the economy slows down. And when the economy grows, union membership is falling (80-present time?). Just wondering if we have something tangible to show how unions hurt our economy.

    Is it true that states with the highest union membership also have a higher unemployment and worse economy than the norm?

    Is it true that the industries that are unionized are all hurting more than other sectors of the economy and have been for some time?

    I think I know the answers, but wanted something to prove those points, especially since the media will not do that job. And I know there are many many factors involved with the economy, that’s why I am looking for a report from the ‘professionals’.