Reply #7: Do both

[Juche]

I don't see why the dems couldn't pass EFCA now w/o card check then add in card check later.

Fundamentally though, I don't see why they should. Unions put $450,000,000 into this election cycle, and they put millions of hours of volunteer work into it. To just be blown off after all that work is very unfair.

The reason the GOP fears cardcheck is because with a stronger union movement there will be more money to support progressive candidates and unions tend to increase voter turnout among the working poor and shift political alliances among people who would otherwise vote GOP (white people, gun owners and religious evangelicals, while all GOP voters become democratic if they join a union). The concept of unionization going from 12% to 20% means billions in added democratic fundraising and a higher voter turnout against the GOP. The GOP is going to fight any efforts to improve union rates, card check is just the most convenient right now. I seriously doubt they'd passively let the dems pass anything they think will increase union levels.

A strong union movement is not only the ethical thing to do, but necessary to ensure democratic and progressive majorities so that the GOP cannot take power again and nullify our accomplishments. EFCA is integral to rebuilding the middle class and maintaining progressive majorities in politics.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/05/10/labor_law_reform_not_just_for_unions.php

Union members are more likely to vote, more likely to vote for Democrats, and more likely to volunteer for campaigns than people with similar demographic and job characteristics who are not unionized. In the November 2004 presidential election, union members represented 12 percent of all workers but union households represented 24 percent of all voters. Despite John Kerry’s tepid campaign and upper-crust demeanor, union members gave him 61 percent of their votes over George W. Bush. In the battleground states, where unions focused their turnout efforts, they did even better. In Ohio, for example, union members favored Kerry by a 67 to 31 percent margin.

When voters' loyalties were divided between their economic interests and other concerns, however, union membership was a crucial determinant of their votes. For example, gun owners favored Bush by a 63 to 36 percent margin, but union members who own guns supported Kerry 55 percent to 43 percent, according to an AFL-CIO survey. Bush carried all weekly church-goers by a 61 to 39 percent margin, but Kerry won among union members who attend church weekly by a 55 to 43 percent split.

Among white males, a group that Democrats have had difficulty attracting in recent Presidential elections, Bush won by a 62 to 37 percent margin. But again, Kerry carried white males who were union members by a 59 to 38 percent difference. Bush won among white women by 55 to 44 percent but Kerry won white women union members by 67 percent to 32 percent.

Had union membership reached even 15 percent of the workforce, Kerry would have won by a significant margin.

If the dems can't get this with 59 senators then we are screwed. ALl they need is 1 GOP senator (specter) to turn. Even if unions have to offer that GOP senator millions of dollars and manhours to help him/her get reelected in 2010, it'll be worth it. Perhaps they can cut that deal with Specter. Help get EFCA passed and the unions will put millions into fighting for you in the primaries and general election of 2010. Or find some GOP senator with a pet project and offer dem help in getting it passed. Or tack EFCA onto a budget bill so it can't be filibustered.


Getting meaningful labor reform will help keep the GOP in the minority, which will make it easier to further every other progressive agenda under the sun (alt. energy, environmentalism, GLBT rights, labor rights, reproductive rights, science R&D, global humanitarian aid, etc).

Labor law reform is the backbone of rebuilding the middle class and ensuring progressive political majorities for a generation or more. It needs to be done by any means necessary.