Pelosi: Dems in Congress 'committed' to EFCA

[babylonsister]

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/05/18/pelosi-dems-in-congress-committed-to-efca/

Pelosi: Dems in Congress 'committed' to EFCA
@ 11:54 am by Michael O'Brien


Democrats in Congress are "committed" to passing the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Monday.

Pelosi told the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department conference in Washington that the strength of the middle class is directly tied to the strength of organized labor.

"Our work in Congress is based on two truths: America�s economy is only as strong as America�s middle class; America�s middle class is only as strong as America�s unions," Pelosi told the labor group today, according to prepared notes.

"That is why Congress is committed to passing the Employee Free Choice Act, and why President Obama is ready to sign it into law," the Speaker said.

Pelosi joins a chorus of Democratic leaders to reiterate support for the prized piece of union legislation as it continues to attempt to clear hurdles in the Senate.

"With a Democratic Congress, we will fight to make the Employee Free Choice Act the law of the land," Pelosi said.

[polichick]

1. Biden has spoken out about this recently - is the president on board?

[babylonsister]

8. Per the OP, "President Obama is ready to sign it into law". nt

[polichick]

12. Hope that's still true - haven't heard him speak about it lately...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8317813&mesg_id=8317813

[TwilightZone]

2. But, but...I thought it was off the table?

That's what I've been told. Repeatedly.

Snark aside, she has a tough task ahead, but I think it's doable.

It'll be interesting to see where Specter ends up on the issue. His recent statements on the topic have been vaguely and marginally positive.

[polichick]

4. Specter will have a challenger in the Dem primary if he doesn't support it...

I think he knows that from Sestak's TV appearances and all the calls he's getting.

[TwilightZone]

5. Agreed.

I think he's had a bit of a wake-up call recently. Whether or not he chooses to heed said call remains yet to be determined.

[Hawkowl]

3. Shifting back to the left

I predict we will see Pelosi scrambling to rebuild a base of hard core dems, such as unions, because she has found she has no friends with her contemptible behavior during the Bush years. Now that she is being mercilessly pilloried by the press, with absolutely nobody defending her, she will have to grow a spine or perish.

[bluestateguy]

6. The House is not where the battle is

We had the votes in the House before the 2008 elections, and that was with 21 fewer Democrats in the House.

[dotymed]

7. WHILE READING AN OLDER(1998) TEXTBOOK ON UNIONS

Entitled;"WHY UNIONS MATTER by MICHAEL YATES, I came
across some quotes that, to me (Union Carpenter), says it all.
No disrespect intended.

"First, the Republican and Democratic parties are
obviously allied with and subservient to the most powerful
employers in the nation. The Republicans may seem to be more
ruthless and transparent in their willingness to obey the
dictates of capital, but the Democrats, in practice, are no
different. In fact, the Democrats are often more dangerous to
workers,because they have a reputation for being the friends
of labor. Democrats usually campaign on a worker friendly
program, but this is largely hype. Once in office they do the
bidding of the employers just as surely as the Republicans.
And since they are perceived to be more liberal than they are,
they are able to get away with more vicious attacks on workers
than the Republicans. They gut welfare and support NAFTA while
giving lip service to liberal social causes like a clean
environment and abortion rights. In a pinch, they say they are
helpless to do anything of benefit for workers because of the
overwhelming power of the Republicans. But look at who funds
both parties and who serves in the administration of both
parties --Wall Street financiers, corporate lawyers, corporate
executives, and other assorted wealthy individuals, almost
without exception."

[dotymed]

11. It IS SO LONG THAT I BROKE INTO DIFFERENT POSTS

"Second, labors natural constituency is comprised of
those hurt by the policies of both political parties.A labor
movement is made up of nonsupervisory workers, together with
the unemployed and the poor who are not in the labor force. A
labor movement must ally itself with groups that support the
interests of these people, including community, religious,
environmental and civil rights organizations, both here and
abroad. In other words, a labor movement is by definition, a
movement of those opposed to employers. Therefore, labors
politics should be a politics in opposition to capital and
support of workers and their allies. The Democratic Party has
long since abandoned any allegiance to working people(indeed
its alliance with Labor during the Great Depression must be
considered an exceptional result of its own self interest and
the open revolt of workers). It is now a party of capital
every bit as much as the Republican Party.If organized labor
ties its star to the Democratic Party,it is tying itself to
its class enemy."

[dotymed]

15. Last Part

"...When Democratic politicians must promote the
interests of employers,as a consequence of who they are and
who pays their bills, labor will be forced to knuckle under or
risk its own status in the party. Thus Union officials will
not offend the Democrats by rejecting their open ravaging of
the social safety net. Thus labor will give support to an
anti-labor foreign policy- for example the Vietnam war- which
usually pits the U.S. against working people
worldwide..................................
Labor's need is to develop a politics of its own, an
independent politics, one to which it holds no matter what
policies are promoted by the parties of capital. If it fails
to do so, it may as well give up its hope of revitalizing its
cause."

I have been a Democrat all of my life, but as I get older it
is obvious that they are just another arm of the republican
party. We have to get real representation for the people.
Money must be removed from the equation if justice for common
people is possible. Go ahead and let me have it....

[babylonsister]

9. Pelosi's claiming the entire Congress, so we'll see. nt

[Enrique]

10. we had the votes in the Senate too

enough to overcome a filibuster.

But several have flipped or waffled since the election, including Specter.

[babylonsister]

13. White House, Senate 'compromises' pave way for Specter's support of labor bill

http://www.mcknights.com/White-House-Senate-compromises-pave-way-for-Specters-support-of-labor-bill/article/136969/

White House, Senate 'compromises' pave way for Specter's support of labor bill


Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) has held a number of different views on the Employee Free Choice Act in the last couple of years. Now, it looks as though the EFCA-supporter-turned-opponent may be shifting his position once more, recent reports suggest.

A supporter of EFCA during the last session of congress (while still a Republican) Specter withdrew his endorsement of the bill in March, shortly after Democrats took control of Congress and the White House in January. (McKnight's, 3/26) When Specter changed parties April 28 and became a Democrat, he warned his new liberal allies that he would not toe the party line for them any more than he had for the Republicans, specifically saying “my position on Employees Free Choice (card check) will not change.” (McKnight's, 4/29)

On Thursday, however, Specter told reporters that he has been working with the White House and other senators on a compromise that could pave the way for his re-endorsement of EFCA. Speculation abounds as to just what compromises Specter would be willing to accept. His primary opposition is to EFCA's arbitration clause—which imposes a federally backed labor contract if one cannot be independently negotiated within a certain time frame—and the contentious “card check” provision—which allows workers to unionize if a majority sign onto the idea. Some suggest that Specter will have a hard time getting re-elected as a Democrat if he continues to oppose EFCA, and that any “compromises” are likely to be more superficial than substantive, suggests an analysis at Salon.com.

[backscatter712]

14. Note that Pelosi actually keeps the House productive.

The Senate, where everyone's favorite Majority Leader Harry Reid is in charge, always gets bogged down in political bullshit. That's where things get held up because Reid lets the GOP throw temper-tantrums and filibusters without punishing them.

Hate Pelosi all you want, but do take note that all those bills like EFCA and the stimulus package cruise through the House with a low to moderate amount of fighting. Pelosi knows how to get things done. She twists the right arms, picks the correct battles, and EFCA will get through the House without problems. A public-option health care package that's likely to be halfway decent will cruise easily through the House. It's always the fucking Senate where things get blocked.

[babylonsister]

16. Yea, but... there are a lot more Dems in the House than rethugs.

Big difference.

[backscatter712]

17. True. Also, there are no filibuster in the House.

That does make it easier to get things done. And Pelosi's seemed to have learned the rules well enough to get things accomplished.

Still, traditionally there are two ways to break filibusters in the Senate: Shame them into an up-or-down vote by howling about it on TV, or twisting arms in the back room ("Vote for cloture on this bill, or I'll take away your pork!")

Reid's especially incompetent at this art.