Employee Free Choice Act: Thoughts on yesterday

Tuesday, a majority of the Senate voted to invoke cloture and bring to the floor a simple majority vote on a bill that seeks to empower people through a simple majority. Ironic and cyclical, I know.

The Employee Free Choice Act went down 51-48. Every Democrat (including Lieberman, perish the thought) voted in favor of this crucial workers' rights bill. Every Republican, save the commendable Arlen Specter, voted against a bill that would do the following:

• Grant union representation to a group of workers that has signaled a majority want that representation, instead of subjecting them to mandatory anti-union indoctrination sessions and termination threats, which they often follow through on
  
• Stiffen the currently laughable fines and penalties on employers who violate NLRB regulations
• Actually force employers to negotiate with recognized unions on first contracts, or face an arbitration panel

So, basically, the Republicans said:

• We only believe in democracy when it benefits our corporate donors, not when it reflects the will of a people we don't care about
• Please, continue to break the laws if you are a corporate constituent. Of course, if you're a poor Mexican trying to better your and your family's lives, then the rule of law is sacred (since you don't give campaign donations)
• When all else fails, just break the law another way

Hyperbole aside, there are a few main points and narratives to take from this:

1. Great job by labor, the AFL-CIO in particular, in drumming up a massive wave of support and news coverage for this bill. They were at the forefront of grassroots and online activism that spawned: 50,000 phone calls to the Senate, 156,000 faxes and e-mail messages and 220,000 postcards, including 120,000 delivered to the Senate last week.

They helped put the EFCA on the national radar, and really draw a line in the sand, and to (holding my nose) quote the Decider himself: either you're with us or you're against us. Purported "moderate Republicans" like Susan Collins and Norm Coleman and Gordon Smith, all facing super tough re-election battles in 2008, just gifted some big issue ads for their opposition next fall.

2. Even though four Democrats didn't sponsor the bill, all of them voted for it. Surely they felt the pressure from the people who help fund their campaigns and get out the vote for them every sixth November. Regardless, it's good to see the aye vote. I'd commend them further, but I'm highly cynical because:

3. As I was angrily pondering while at work and as David Sirota more eloquently put into words, this bill was, for all intents and cloture purposes, dead on arrival. There was no way that the necessary ten Republicans were going to cross the aisle and vote for cloture on this bill. The only way this thing was going to pass was adding it to a spending bill, or a bill that no Republican could oppose without inviting political peril.

Did they want it to fail? Maybe. Why? Perhaps so every corporate Democrat could "vote for" this bill, seemingly add to their populist credentials, with no consequences. It's the best of both worlds. Lobbyist and PACs won't be pissed, because it was largely a procedural vote, and they can ring a hollow populist call on the next campaign trail. Or maybe to help contribute to a larger Democratic populist narrative for 2008.

Now the bill is dead, it seems, until at least the next legislative session, or even 2009. I hope this wasn't a case of cynical politics, because even if it means a few more votes for Democrats, the core mission of the party, the reason why true blue Dems run and people donate and work tirelessly for in the first place... every day, that will be compromised. People will lose their jobs for speaking up, others will live in fear. And sixty million people will be without the union representation that they so crave.