Greg Sargent writes about the latest bad news for the supporters of the inaptly named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA):
Specter has now weighed in on the issue in a way that may give some labor folks pause. The Senator told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that he is “well aware of the tradition of secret ballot on political elections and the difficulties of binding arbitration on the conducting of a business so I’m hearing people on all sides.”
This is potentially problematic for the pro-EFCA side. That’s because Specter seems to be treating somewhat seriously the anti-EFCA camp’s claim that the measure is undemocratic because of the secret ballot provision. This, despite the fact that the measure doesn’t forbid a secret ballot. Rather, it allows workers who want to join a union to choose not to hold one and to join based on a majority signing cards declaring their preference.
Sargent, like many other reporters who accept the Big Labor spin, has it wrong. Under the EFCA, if the union gets more than 50% of the authorization cards there is no election. And if the number of cards is between 30% and 50% of the applicable bargaining unit, the “option” of the election belongs to the union; not the employees.
As for Specter, he appears not to be buying what Big Labor is selling. Contrary to pro-Big Labor bloggers, the quid pro quo overtures of the AFL-CIO and SEIU, seem to have done their cause no good. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the weekend after these “offers” were made, Specter felt compelled to publicly express his reservations. (And he’s not accepting invitations to switch parties either.)
Regardless of the merits of EFCA, Specter can hardly be seen as responsive to such brazen maneuvers to secure his vote. After all, such a thing is simply not done under Scottish Law.