News

Newly appointed Massachusetts Sen. Paul Kirk has sealed the Democratic Party’s 60-seat majority. The potentially filibuster-proof bloc’s impact on healthcare legislation has overshadowed discussion of nearly everything else. But once the healthcare debate is resolved, the deceptively disastrous bill called the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is likely to be next on the Senate agenda. Essentially a handout to labor union officials at the expense of the rest of America, EFCA is the top priority of organized labor. And they have paid plenty to be next in line.

The original draft of EFCA included a provision called “card check” that would have effectively eliminated secret ballots in union elections. A more politically palatable proposal will soon replace card check with quick “ambush elections.” These will deny employers sufficient time to educate employees about the personal consequences of unionization. The compromise, which will subject employers and their employees to a deeply flawed mandatory contract arbitration process, may attract the 60 Democrat votes needed to scale a unified Republican wall.

Any discussion of EFCA’s prospects ultimately boils down to the little-discussed (outside the Beltway), arcane Senate voting rules. It’s as simple as this: If Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (Nev.) can drum up 60 votes to pass a “cloture” vote that ends extended debate, it can become law with a second vote where only 51 votes are needed. In the world of Senate voting (made famous by Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry), a senator can vote for a bill before voting against it.

Not well understood is that even if the Senate passes a relatively moderate bill, it will be sent to conference committee to reconcile it with the House bill.

The two conferring labor committees are made up of some of the most radical pro-union members of Congress, so there’s a good chance the final bill would come back looking like it was written at AFL-CIO headquarters (which, by the way, is where EFCA was originally drafted). Whatever the Senate did to accommodate the moderate Democrats can be undone in an instant.

Congressional rules and procedures can be confusing to outsiders, but the upshot is simple: Unless a senator consistently votes “no” down the line on EFCA, he or she is not being honest about his or her intentions. What that senator is doing, however, is playing games to appeal to two different constituencies: union bosses who write big campaign checks, and ordinary voters who don’t want to see their workplace unionized. A few Democratic senators have seemingly signaled they are willing to be part of the 60 votes needed for cloture, and then give their union friends a wink as they vote against the modified bill when their second vote isn’t needed for passage.

Some of those still flirting with the mixed-vote scenario make statements along the lines of, “I don’t want to lock down the Senate with procedural hurdles.” But a look at their past voting patterns makes it clear these same senators have voted against cloture when procedural roadblocks suited their ultimate agenda. Four of the most talked-about senators, Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), have collectively voted to “lock down the Senate” with a “no” vote on cloture more than 300 times.

Congress is supposed to represent the will of the people, and nationwide polls show 82 percent of Americans don’t want to join a union. If the Employee Free Choice Act is not stopped in the Senate, millions of Americans will be forced into unions. It is why the unions are so committed to passage. Billions in new dues dollars are at stake. If a senator wants to prevent that scenario from happening, his or her own vote must be clear: No. No. No.

[read full story]