EFCA Support on a Downward Spiral

Sen. Arlen Specter’s (R-Pa.) announcement that he would not vote for cloture on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) now appears to have only been a prelude to a rapid decline in support from Democrats who formerly supported the Act, including some unlikely defectors. Recently, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) – who cosponsored the same legislation in 2007 – announced that due to the faltering economy, she would not support EFCA in its current form. Instead, she claimed – as did Specter – that she would support a compromise measure. According to an article by the Los Angeles Times, Feinstein said: “[t]his is an extraordinarily difficult economy, and feelings are very strong on both sides of the issue. I would hope there is some way to find common ground that would be agreeable to both business and labor.”  It should be noted that both the business community and organized labor are on record as strongly opposing any compromise on EFCA.

Aside from Sen. Feinstein, Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.) has also expressed strong reservations over certain aspects of EFCA. Specifically, he has said that he does not support the contentious “card check” provision that would enable the National Labor Relations Board to certify a union as the employees’ exclusive bargaining agent based on a majority of signed authorization cards, instead of through a secret ballot election. Carper has claimed that using the card check method is not a reliable indicator of an employee’s wishes, and that a secret ballot election is the fairest method of gauging whether employees truly want to be represented by a union.

A number of other Democratic Senators may have reservations regarding this legislation. Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Mary Pryor (D-Ark.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.) are just some of the growing number of Democratic senators who have either voiced some qualms about the bill or have yet to officially support it. Without their backing, EFCA will not survive in its present form.

Information contained in this publication is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or opinion, nor is it a substitute for the professional judgment of an attorney.