EFCA in trouble in Senate

[Ogre Mage]

How have the Maine twins voted on pro-labor bills in the past?

When a similar card check bill came before the U.S. Senate on June 26, 2007, both Snowe and Collins voted "nay" on the cloture motion.  The motion to end cloture failed 51-48.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00227

[Lunar]

Also, I think Snowe has to prove what she's doing in the Republican party on at least one key vote.

[Nym90]

It's worth noting that unions can be eliminated in the workplace without a secret ballot. For those of you who oppose this, would you support changing that as well?

[Nym90]

Why would people like Pryor or Lincoln (especially Lincoln) risk Walmart funding a candidate against them?

I wonder who the other four are.  Landrieu makes sense.

Well, they might care about, um, doing the right thing morally, and helping the economy, and not just doing what's best for Walmart.

I realize that's a laughable concept in politics, but I guess I'm still too young to believe it's impossible.

[Lunar]

Why would people like Pryor or Lincoln (especially Lincoln) risk Walmart funding a candidate against them?

I wonder who the other four are.  Landrieu makes sense.

Well, they might care about, um, doing the right thing morally, and helping the economy, and not just doing what's best for Walmart.

You mean exchanging their vote for all kinds of concessions from Reid regarding future bills, while watering down the bill enough that the Chamber of Commerce ultra-fund their opponents [instead of just funding]?

[Lunar]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/10/breaking-ben-nelson-oppos_n_173548.html

Nelson's against

[Lunar]

Here's your six:
Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Arlen Specter, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, and Mark Udall.

Note that Salazar opposed it last time

[Nym90]

Why would people like Pryor or Lincoln (especially Lincoln) risk Walmart funding a candidate against them?

I wonder who the other four are.  Landrieu makes sense.

Well, they might care about, um, doing the right thing morally, and helping the economy, and not just doing what's best for Walmart.

You mean exchanging their vote for all kinds of concessions from Reid regarding future bills, while watering down the bill enough that the Chamber of Commerce ultra-fund their opponents [instead of just funding]?

Such a cynical lad dost thou be.

[Sam Spade]

Why would people like Pryor or Lincoln (especially Lincoln) risk Walmart funding a candidate against them?

I wonder who the other four are.  Landrieu makes sense.

Well, they might care about, um, doing the right thing morally, and helping the economy, and not just doing what's best for Walmart.

I realize that's a laughable concept in politics, but I guess I'm still too young to believe it's impossible.

You're right.  I forgot about Tyson Chicken.  

Btw, this bill would be nothing but a complete disaster to the private sector of this country, especially small business, at possibly the worst possible time.

[Nym90]

Why would people like Pryor or Lincoln (especially Lincoln) risk Walmart funding a candidate against them?

I wonder who the other four are.  Landrieu makes sense.

Well, they might care about, um, doing the right thing morally, and helping the economy, and not just doing what's best for Walmart.

I realize that's a laughable concept in politics, but I guess I'm still too young to believe it's impossible.

You're right.  I forgot about Tyson Chicken.  

Btw, this bill would be nothing but a complete disaster to the private sector of this country, especially small business, at possibly the worst possible time.

Yeah, we've had that discussion before, and will simply have to agree to disagree about whether higher pay and better benefits for employees helps the economy or not. Obviously those who oppose the stimulus will oppose this too for the same reason, but I can't see how supply side economics is the answer to this crisis.

[Sam Spade]

Why would people like Pryor or Lincoln (especially Lincoln) risk Walmart funding a candidate against them?

I wonder who the other four are.  Landrieu makes sense.

Well, they might care about, um, doing the right thing morally, and helping the economy, and not just doing what's best for Walmart.

I realize that's a laughable concept in politics, but I guess I'm still too young to believe it's impossible.

You're right.  I forgot about Tyson Chicken.  

Btw, this bill would be nothing but a complete disaster to the private sector of this country, especially small business, at possibly the worst possible time.

Yeah, we've had that discussion before, and will simply have to agree to disagree about whether higher pay and better benefits for employees helps the economy or not. Obviously those who oppose the stimulus will oppose this too for the same reason, but I can't see how supply side economics is the answer to this crisis.

This has nothing to do with supply-side economics, Nym.

Let me just repeat the point most important to our present time.  If the government tries to force higher pay and better benefits for workers through the ease of creating unions during massive asset deflation, unemployment is only going to spike even higher.  In fact, if there was any chance of this bill passing, I would expect the smart businesses to preemptively lay off people.

The collapse of the financial sector and many areas of the service sector that is presently occurring will result in wage deflation in this country on a large scale, whether it occurs through lesser-paying jobs or full-time workers only working part-time.  I am on the record saying that if I had to hazard a guess, wages in the US will be cut in half when this is all over, but I am willing to listen to less draconian results.

[Nym90]

The government wouldn't be forcing anything. The workers would decide for themselves whether or not to create the union. If the company wants to use scare tactics to attempt to persuade the employees that unions are bad for the economy, that's their right.

Ultimately, balance in the labor-management relationship is good for the economy, as opposed to allowing one side to have all or almost all the power at the expense of the other.

I only bring up supply side as a bad solution because I believe the demand side is where the problem currently lies with the economy (and has for 30 years or more, it's just been artificially masked for a long time).

[Lunar]

What's weird about Udall is that he cosponsored the 2007 version of EFCA as a representative

[Ogre Mage]

What's weird about Udall is that he cosponsored the 2007 version of EFCA as a representative

Then-Rep. Udall's Congressional District, CO-2 (Boulder) is considerably more liberal than the state as a whole. 

[opebo]

...I am on the record saying that if I had to hazard a guess, wages in the US will be cut in half when this is all over, but I am willing to listen to less draconian results.

I think that is a realistic possibility, but keep in mind that wages are set by political choice, not by some vague 'economy' or 'market'. 

If we want asset prices to reflate an easy way to do it is just increase wages.  This is how 'assets' bought by commoners are priced in the first place - they borrow money based on their wages to 'buy a house'.

Ultimately real assets are also affected by wages, as consumption and 'sale' of any goods - houses, cars, etc. - is part of the process of the owning class extracting from the producing class.

[Mr. Morden]

From the Wikipedia article:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I read about this elsewhere as well.....that EFCA would set up a regime by which either the employers or the union could ask for federal mediation, and the mediators could impose a *binding* agreement if the two parties are unable to reach an agreement on their own.  If EFCA really does that, then that seems like it could potentially be a much bigger deal than the shift away from the secret ballot for unionization.  That would be an awful lot of power being invested in the feds.

[Nym90]

It's worth noting that unions can be eliminated in the workplace without a secret ballot. For those of you who oppose this, would you support changing that as well?

I notice this question drew no responses and thus must have gotten lost in the shuffle.

[Frodo]

Bump:

I know that a majority of the Senate supports the passage of the EFCA, though it is having trouble reaching the 60 needed to overcome filibustering Republicans.

Just exactly how many senators support this legislation? 

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's worth noting that unions can be eliminated in the workplace without a secret ballot. For those of you who oppose this, would you support changing that as well?

I notice this question drew no responses and thus must have gotten lost in the shuffle.

     I guess someone should respond. Anyway, I oppose changing it, as I oppose the notion of labor unions existing in today's economy.

[© tweed]

when did we start needing 60 votes to pass anything?  seriously, Reid needs to make the Republicans stand up and talk for 30 hours without taking a piss or whatever it is every time they vote against cloture.

(not that I support the EFCA and not that I oppose it.  it's just a joke that the GOP gets to ram through a gigantic, crippling tax cut by a vote of 51-50 and the Dems need the Arlen Specters of the world so they can beat that number by ten)

[dead0man]

To be fair, Democrats have used the fake filibuster many times in the past.

[Lief 🗽]

[Nym90]

when did we start needing 60 votes to pass anything?  seriously, Reid needs to make the Republicans stand up and talk for 30 hours without taking a piss or whatever it is every time they vote against cloture.

(not that I support the EFCA and not that I oppose it.  it's just a joke that the GOP gets to ram through a gigantic, crippling tax cut by a vote of 51-50 and the Dems need the Arlen Specters of the world so they can beat that number by ten)

Maybe we need to bring back the nuclear option that the Republicans threatened to impose in 2005. I'm sure they would still support it now since they supported it then, right?

[Nym90]

It's worth noting that unions can be eliminated in the workplace without a secret ballot. For those of you who oppose this, would you support changing that as well?

I notice this question drew no responses and thus must have gotten lost in the shuffle.

     I guess someone should respond. Anyway, I oppose changing it, as I oppose the notion of labor unions existing in today's economy.

"Today's economy" as we know it would never have existed without unions.

But I do appreciate your honesty. The real motivation behind defeating this bill is in creating greater imbalance in the labor-management relationship, not in trying to keep it in balance as some supporters have claimed.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's worth noting that unions can be eliminated in the workplace without a secret ballot. For those of you who oppose this, would you support changing that as well?

I notice this question drew no responses and thus must have gotten lost in the shuffle.

     I guess someone should respond. Anyway, I oppose changing it, as I oppose the notion of labor unions existing in today's economy.

"Today's economy" as we know it would never have existed without unions.

But I do appreciate your honesty. The real motivation behind defeating this bill is in creating greater imbalance in the labor-management relationship, not in trying to keep it in balance as some supporters have claimed.

     I know today's economy would never have existed without unions. They were useful at one time for protecting the rights of workers, but the government does that well enough today, & the people have come to expect a certain level of equity. I strongly doubt that if unions just disappeared things like weekends & 8-hour work days would disappear without massive public uprising occurring as a result.