thetruthaboutefca.com | The Truth About The Employee Free Choice Act & Card Check

Pat Toomey, who has been endorsed by Associated Builders and Contractors for his run at the Senate seat currently held by Sen. Arlen Specter, is making card check an issue in his campaign.

In a profile of Toomey, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette makes note of these important positions:

“(The Democrats) both supported all the bailouts of the failing banks and car companies. They both supported government takeover of health care, they both supported cap and trade, which would be devastating for our economy, they both supported card check, which would deny workers a secret ballot,” Mr. Toomey said.

Cap and trade and card check are both terrible policies in that both will kill the one thing our economy most desperately needs for a recovery: jobs.

It’s also a positive sign that both are fairly unpopular, which once again reminds us that sometimes good policy and good politics can go hand-in-hand.

There’s a strong argument that one of the primary motivations for union officials to push the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act because it would usher in enough new dues-paying employees to prop up failing union pension funds (which are one of the main selling points for the unions’ service).

Therefore it is good news that there are some great new websites popping up to help union members figure out whether their retirement will consist of caviar or cat food. As we’ve noted before, it’s extremely tough to get that information and it (unfortunately) appears to be headed in exactly the wrong direction on union disclosure, so outside efforts are critical.

In that vein, check out websites focusing on SEIU and UFCW. And check out more here.

Nothing terribly notable, just a few things for you:

• In the Washington Post: Halter challenges Arkansas’ Lincoln from left in Senate race
• In The Hill: Sen. Specter viewed as a model Democrat one year after switch
• For Senate, a primary Democrats didn’t want

PointOfLaw asks whether the president’s recent moves on the National Labor Relations Board will lead to “wholesale reversals” of important cases.

They grab a quote from a management attorney, who says:

There will be no imperative for the President to fill the other two vacancies, which will mean there will be no institutional balance in the Board’s decisions. Consequently, labor law reform will be accomplished through the reversal of numerous decisions, changes in election procedures, as well as aggressive rulemaking to enhance union chances for election success, and punitive new remedies for unfair labor practices designed to diminish management’s lawful exercise of its statutory rights.

Our point is: whether it’s wholesale changes or just retail changes to critical cases, what’s the real difference? Things are looking shaky for employees and employers before a heavily lopsided Board.

Who ever imagined the National Labor Relations Board — a relatively obscure (though important) agency — would get so much attention? With the push to make the board seemingly more of an activist agency based on the recent addition of union attorney Craig Becker, employers are concerned and media members are taking note.

First, though, is the addition to the discussion that Sen. Arlen Specter has made part of his reelection campaign a five-point “workers bill of rights” that includes:

Forcing China to end its practice of pegging its currency to the U.S. dollar, more aggressive U.S. enforcement of trade laws, rescinding the president’s authority to overrule the International Trade Commission’s recommendations, speedier remedies for illegal trade claims, and stronger “Buy American” requirements under the stimulus.

(As the blog post from The Hill notes, Specter’s office took exception to the characterization of his speech as “campaign rhetoric.”)

But back to Becker. The New York Times offers its spin analysis under the headline “Deadlock Is Ending on Labor Board.” You know, if you polled 10 people on the street and told them there was an end to political deadlock 9 would say that’s a great thing, until you told them the price could be a worker’s right to a private ballot and an end to the right to vote on a final contract if a government-imposed arbitrator gets involved.

The Wall Street Journal’s take: “Unions Could Benefit From Labor Board’s Power Shift”. We suppose there’s something to be said for understatement.

The Battle of the Board is just heating up.

There’s a great article running over in the Boston Globe on the disappointing move by the president to use a controversial recess appointment to place union attorney Craig Becker on the National Labor Relations Board:

Becker