Forbes Magazine Cheers Obama Silence on EFCA (Corporations to Obama: THANK YOU!!)

Obama's Welcome Silence On The Employee Free Choice Act
Richard A. Epstein, 02.10.09, 12:00 AM EST
The president checks himself on card checks.

Just about a year ago today, candidate Barack Obama received a full-throated endorsement from Andy Stern, the savvy and aggressive president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), for his unstinting support of labor-backed initiatives in both the Illinois and U.S. Senate.

In part, Stern's endorsement has paid off with a presidential boost of two ill-advised labor measures, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. But for Stern and the SEIU the real political payoff was supposed to come from the passage of the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act.

Without doubt, the EFCA would introduce the most avulsive change in labor law since the passage of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, which made mandatory collective bargaining between management and labor the law of the land.

Today President Obama, who has moved hard on many fronts, has maintained a wise and judicious silence on the EFCA. Thankfully, the current bill has garnered somewhat less political support in Congress than it did a year ago when it sailed through the House only to die for the want of 60 votes in the Senate.

(more)
http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/09/card-checks-efca-opinions-columnists_0210_richard_epstein.html


You have the wrong people cheering you, Mr. President. :(

That helps create a climate in which Specter and Fienstien can bail without repercussions of any kind.

You can't not fight for a bill at all and then blame republicans who cross the isle at great risk to their own position for opting to go back. I wouldn't stick my neck out there either on something if the administration wasn't going to have my back with the public.

I just have to wait a few years to vote against her.
And vote against her I will.

I'll vote for the Flying Spaghetti Monster if I have to...

hasn't said he doesn't support it. These jerks we have in the senate aren't helping things at all.

We aren't fighting for EFCA. Period.

We've signaled to Senators: Your on your own on this.

So Specter slinks away and so does Fienstein.

Corporate America gets exactly what happened - as per usual, and are signaling their gratitude to the President while the rest of us live in denial.

No sense in piling on Feinstein or Obama. The leaders in Congress are the ones not pushing this. Pelosi has been scheduling all her other priorities.

and no campaigning from the white house to the public.

When the white house signals that a difficult politically challenging bill isn't one of its priorities, you expect Congress to just take it up for fun?

Of course not. The follow the signal, and let it wither.

If they want it. The President just needs to sign it. Its their job to legislate.

"They" don't set the policy agenda. The President of the United States is the leader of the party and the party platform, and the president always, ALWAYS, ALWAYS applies pressure to congress on BOTH sides of the isle to make sure that his agenda gets done.

This is especially true when supporting his agenda would take political COURAGE, like supporting EFCA would. EFCA takes courage to vote for, in the face of corporations who spent millions on congress persons on both sides of the isle. Without the administration making it a policy priority and promising political retribution for democrats who get out of line - THIS IS WHAT FUCKING HAPPENS.

Politically.

It was one small thing when Obama conveniently forgot his pro-Palestinian rhetoric, which I hoped might bring achange in Israel-Palestine relations.

And another small thing, when he said we can't afford to look back, and we need to pass on investigating the past Adminstration for war cirmes.

And another small thing when he selected Monsanto-insider Velsick for Ag Department.

But now the financial spehere is so totally mismanaged. And since it is a MERE 2.1 to 8.9 Trillion dollars, it could be a very long economic nightmare. Especially given Obama's devotion to Geithner, the man who made Japan's sick economy even sicker after the IMF installed Geithner to deal with said problem in 1998.

Things like this are not going to get any traction until the economy flattens.

restoring the strength of labor is part of our way out of the hellhole that our rape of labor created.

You need to deal with these things first. Can't have to many contentious battles at once. The EFCA fight is going to be nasty. It doesn't have to be done in the first 100 days. And its not going to pass anyway. The votes aren't there.

That is the problem.

Right wing doctrine:

Help the economy of the investors, the speculators and Wall Street and it will trickle down to the rest of us.

All political thinking that can even remotely be called left wing, liberal or even moderate:

Help the economy of the working people, and all will prosper.

I side with Lincoln and FDR on this, and support the traditional position of the Democratic party and organized Labor. I reject the Reaganomics view of the economy - that it is about the investors and money people and capital and not about the working people and Labor - and so have the people now - overwhelmingly, in a historic shift of massive proportions. Democrats ignore this at their own peril.

Here is Lincoln on this subject -

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.


...

I still think of the time Obama told the teacher union to their face that he was going to implement merit pay whether they like it or not. He said he would do it "with them" not "to them". How do you do something "with" a group that doesn't want it done?

Even if Franken was seated. You still needed Specter. If I'm Obama, I'm not sure I want to fight losing battles right now.

I can't see Congress or Obama pushing this at least until after mid term elections.

Everything doesn't have to be done the first 100 days

Here's what you consistently don't get. EFCA wasn't introduced on a whim. It was coordinated and timely. It was introduced with the assurance that both the white house and congressional democratic leaders would be vociferously behind it.

If we wanted to "wait" for some better time, then it wouldn't have been introduced at all. It was introduced because all assurances were given that the Democrats were IN it for real. Then by the time it was introduced, apparently things had changed, there were some cold feet, and the overwhelming massive, incalculably huge campaign of corporations was paying off. Suddenly the administration is nowhere to be found on the issue. And without the pressure of that popularity and capital, democrats start going off the reservation looking for easier ways out. Specter quickly jumps ship because all signals are that the Democrats are no longer serious, and he's facing huge pressure. Feinstein bolts for the door, Reid and Pelosi cop out.....

This is what happens when there is the assurance that EFCA will be a policy priority for this administration, and then the administration does nothing about it, and thus makes it easy for democrats to start backing out, and signals to someone like Specter that he'll have no political cover.

Here's the next thing that happens. EFCA will fail, and it's failure will make it that much more difficult to pass again later. The debate has already been well-framed by the GOP and the multi-millions spend by Corporations. The public now things EFCA is some anti-worker bill - hell Republicans have even managed to make it look like they've stood up for the "little guy" by lying about what EFCA even does.

When EFCA comes up again, it will be with that stigma, and the stigma of already being defeated, and the stigma of already being "debated" and "decided" in the media and the public. Not to mention the fact that the American worker is out there bleeding to fucking death while you sit around and whine about how we should never fight for anything, we should just count fucking heads before we even try to push and agenda.

This notion of "not having the votes" before you've even lifted a fucking finger to GET VOTES is utterly asinine and its SHAMEFUL.

It's also why Republicans drove through SO MUCH POLICY while they were in power and we sit around doing JACK FUCKING SHIT.

Cause WAAAAAAAAAA we don't have votes we'd better all just go sit around with our thumbs up our asses rather than actually try to GET what we need to pass bills. You don't "have" votes. You "GET" votes by dirty, in your face, HARD BALL. For all I care they should threaten Reconciliation on EFCA. Fuck em.

Thats just reality. They thought they could count on Specter.

You don't need 60 votes to pass a bill. You need 60 votes for cloture. So make the republicans filibuster. Stop all other bills from coming through - make it the number one story in the national media. Get Obama to use that charm and brilliance to rally the American people and flood congress with angry demanding calls...

Listen to me for one second - earlier this year you had REPUBLICANS going out and saying that we should punish corporations and take their bonuses away and regulate them and fire their CEOs and all of this. People like you would have never dreamed they would have ever said anything like that before. But the CLIMATE changed. People have come awake, and they are angry and they are alert and they are flooding congress with calls.

There's nothing that scares or motivates congress persons more than an awakened public. But to get the public rallied like that it takes concerted effort, a strong, vociferous campaign and a strong leader. In short it takes making it a policy priority of an administration with a great deal of political capital.

You're whole "we don't have the votes" thin before we EVER EVEN FUCKING TRY - man, that's politics as usual. That's more of the same old same old that NONE OF US VOTED FOR when we voted for President Obama. This President is capable of doing SO MUCH MORE.

I'm sorry you don't have more faith in what Obama could do if he tried.

Some here think that President Obama's bully pulpit has been stolen and/or that he has no influence over what Congressional Democratic leaders say and do.

I believe that President Obama is still the leader of the Democratic Party unless Senator Reid has replaced him as some here suggest.

The Dems owe Labor... plain and simple.
They don't have 60 votes? Too fucking bad... I bet they have 51.

I think it's time to face down a fillibuster.

The point of the stigma of a previous failure is the most pressing in my opinion. That's why the health care fight is going to be so tough... it's because the Repubs are gonna be strutting the whole time about having won the last time around. All the people who fell for the BS the last time around still believe it. Etc.
Hell, if you think about it, this is an argument for the tactical benefit of going after EFCA first... cause then there will be momentum, and a filibuster beaten... which will offset any sense of empowerment the GOP might have about the healthcare issue.

Voila... it's now in the President's and the Democrats' best interest to ram EFCA through.

That article was written BEFORE the statements below were made....so no, he hasn't been silent.

So what is your agenda? To accuse him in order to get enough folks pissed,
to put the pressure on?

Isn't that misleading, what you are doing? :shrug:

Obama to AFL-CIO: ‘We will pass EFCA’
March 6, 2009 by Jim Giuliano

In a videotaped address, President Obama promised a group of union leaders that the controversial Employee Free Choice Act will become law.

The bill would make it easier for unions to recruit workers because it would give them the option of joining a union simply by signing cards rather than through secret-ballot elections in which companies can campaign against the union. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations have been campaigning against the legislation.

The Employee Free Choice Act is expected to be introduced sometime this year in the U.S. Senate, where it likely would be amended before being sent to the U.S. House. Here’s a copy of the Senate version , and there’s a summary below.

Obama’s announcement went out to about 100 union leaders who were meeting with Labor Secretary Solis in Miami.
http://www.hrmorning.com/obama-to-afl-cio-we-will-pass-efca/


Biden on EFCA

By Matthew Cooper - March 5, 2009, 3:39PM

Joe Biden addressed the AFL's Executive Committee in Miami this morning. Transcript of the event is finally out. Here are Biden's comments on the Employee Free Choice Act. Does not sound like any backing down:

So, folks, that's why there's no one thing we have to do. This is all going to be difficult, and one of the most difficult things will be to reinstitute that basic bargain. And I think the way to do that is the Employee Free Choice Act. (Applause.)

Folks, let's get it straight -- we're not asking -- we're not asking
for anything we don't deserve. And we're not asking for anything that
wasn't intended when the NLRB said we should be encouraging --
encouraging -- unions. We just want to level this playing field again.


Ladies and gentlemen, I think President Obama said it best when he said
-- I'm quoting -- "I don't buy the argument that providing workers with
collective bargaining rights somehow weakens the economy or worsens the
business environment." If you've got workers who have a decent pay and
benefits, they also are customers for your business. (Applause.)


So let me add to that and say that I have a simple, basic belief, one
that we're going to work hard to put into action: If a union is what
you want, a union you're entitled to have. (Applause.)
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/03/biden-on-efca.php

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you really think the admins here are as timid in their politics as you appear to be?

If at this point they have refused to heed the calls to banish all "losers" who criticise Obama do you really think they would find PH's posts in this thread (and specifically the original post) as even remotely beyond the pale?

I've had a varied history with PH and while I admit to feeling a little confused by his recent posts in light of some the (ahem) disagreements before the election - when I said essentially everything he's saying now - if I disagreed with him I would expound on my REASONS for that.

Why on EARTH can't YOU do that? why run to the alert? why not counter his arguments with some of your own, or have I just answered my own question :eyes:

Oh and I'm pretty sure the only thing posted in the thread that goes against DU rules is YOU calling PH a loser.

EFCA should be brought to the Senate floor and if the Republicans oppose it with a threatened filibuster, don't withdraw the ERCA bill. Make the Republicans engage in a real filibuster, not a bogus "call-in" filibuster against it.

Make them set up cots on the Senate floor and "debate" as long as they wish, until they tire, as they surely will.

It looks like some Democratic Party "leaders" in the Senate will now be excusing their surrender to Republicans on this and other legislation by saying "we don't have 60 votes to end the debate" on the bill even if a debate is not actually taking place on the Senate floor!

No more fake, bogus Republican filibusters.

Make them filibuster!

Obama has stated what his priorities are: Economy, Energy, Healthcare, and Education.

I would not expect him to spend much political capital on other issues until those priorities have been tackled.

I am kind of getting tired of truth twisting because certain posters do not like Obama. Guess what? Arlen Specter is a Repub, not a Dem. There is a reason for that. Has he never failed to act that way when it really came down to it?
Secondly. Feinstein is tied to big corps and is basically a DINO now. Thirdly, the filibuster needs to be done but that is our lovely leadership with Reid, who has always sucked long before Obama even came on the scene.

People are embracing the newspeak that says if we disagree than one of us is lying.

Okay. I get any disagreement you have with Obama on any issue but why do this?

There's a date on there right?

When did that happen.

I thought that President Obama had some pull in the Democratic Party and could lean on Senator Reid and Congresswomen Pelosi to push his agenda.

So you think that Obama is a very weak President in terms of his influence over Congress. Did someone steal his bully pulpit?

I hope you are wrong.

of fucking course not, because there are no "facts" that an intelligent, honest person with a scant knowledge of history could dispute here...take that as a challenge if you like, prove me wrong.

you already knew that, right?

President Obama Wants You to Join the Union

Obama Reaffirms Support for Employee Free Choice Act

President Obama: "We will pass the Employee Free Choice Act"

Except for the last one... but that one was delivered to the AFL-CIO, and hence hardly contradicts what Political Heretic, in his thread, suggested: that Obama might not be campaigning hard enough to support the EFCA. A perspective that was either inspired by or re-inforced by an article in Forbes Magazine.

Just saying, your links actually don't de-value a word of what Political Heretic has said. I'd like to believe that Obama still supports EFCA, and that he'll fight for it... but there seem to be signs that he's wavering.

hardly anyone bothers reading them (including the random poster themselves) so if you simply assert you links back up your point and bung a few in then hey presto you've won the argument, testament to their persuasive strengths of their arguments huh.

... ironically, many seemed to have deemed that argument won in favor of ProSense... on all three collective threads... so no one has tried to call me on my point... or even flame me.

I'm still a relative newbie here... does that mean I've "won"?

And of course the "you already knew that" bullshit :eyes:. They are basically saying that Political heretic is a Freeper/shit stirrer or something and they have links (links I tell ya!!!!) to prove everything that supports their worldview. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...

his budget, with healthcare and energy plans. We can't expect him to work on everything at once. Patience!