Norquist: Specter to Oppose Cloture on EFCA

By
Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 2:04 pm

Speaking at a labor issues conference in Washington, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform said that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) had just decided to vote against cloture on the Employee Free Choice Act. Scott Hoeflich, Specter’s chief of staff, called Norquist to give him a heads up before Specter reads his statement on the Senate floor today.

UPDATE: ATR has its own announcement:

Senator Specter’s Office has confirmed to ATR that he will vote against both cloture and passage on the Employee Free Choice Act (also known as “card check” or the employee NO choice act).  His vote is critical and this a major victory for freedom, as well as a stunning defeat for the other side.

I talked to Norquist after his speech; he was confident that Specter’s vote would hold up even against a compromise that would remove “card check” from EFCA while keeping mandatory arbitration. “We have 41 votes,” said Norquist. “[Sen. Olympia] Snowe (R-Maine) and [Sen. Susan] Collins [R-Maine] know what the game is.”

TWI is on Twitter. Follow us here.

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Comments

16 Comments

Makaainana
Comment posted March 24, 2009 @ 11:33 am

What? You folks are against letting a bunch of your own workers sign a card and voice their opinion?

Than doesn't sound like the party of law and order, fiscal conservative, freedom preserving folks. It sounds more like keep um down, keep um poor, exploit em.

How can you expect me to endorse your ideas if you are so blatantly special interest. If you favor money over people how can you believe that I would trust you to govern the nation?


Curly
Comment posted March 24, 2009 @ 12:24 pm

Makaainana 0 minutes ago , I AM for letting people to join a union if they want to. I AM not for letting a group of people(?) to intiminate me or any else into signing a card to get a union in. I have been on both side of the union/nonunion workforce. If you are for the signed card to get a union in you should also be for a signed card to get a union out.


ModerationIsKey
Comment posted March 24, 2009 @ 12:29 pm

How can you expect me to endorse your ideas if you are so blatantly special interest. If you favor money over people how can you believe that I would trust you to govern the nation?

Are you talking about Obama? Obama is so pro-union it isn't funny and it's fairly obvious way, they donated a lot of money so that he would pass a law. Employee Free Choice Act is such a laughable name, as it is exactly the opposite of what the name entails. As of now a workforce needs only 30% of the workforce to vote in favor of a union in order to hold elections and then if the majority vote in favor a union is formed. As of now this process uses a closed ballot, under the “Employee Free Choice Act” your vote will be open to everybody else. Do you want anyone and everyone to know how you vote for you political candiates? Then why would you want everybody to know how you vote for a union? Whether you are pro union or anti-union this Act is despicable.


ddpalmer
Comment posted March 24, 2009 @ 12:34 pm

The issue is allowing people to vote for or against unionizing with a secret ballot. This legislation would remove that ability and would allow the union organizers to pressure people into voting for the union with the non-secret cards.


Charlie
Comment posted March 24, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

The people who have already left comments on this issue obviously know nothing about the real world when it comes to workers trying to obtain representation by A Union. The present so-called “secret ballot” process under the National Labor relations Board has been so distorted by years of Republican appointed Board members, that it is no longer a viable way to obtain collective bargaining rights. It can take literally years of litigation under the present system for workers who want representation to even come close to an election. If an employer hires one of the many law firms who specialize in the process, the Board is so slanted toward employer wishes that the system can be played for years.
Forget about the overused argument about Unions being in it for the money they get from dues. It no longer makes economic or practical sense to try to organize workers under this process. The system is slanted to such an extent that it does, in fact, make sense for an employer to pay for one of these firms to represent them, because the NLRB process can help them.


Matthew Yglesias » Specter Now Against EFCA
Pingback posted March 24, 2009 @ 3:51 pm

[...] the lone Republican to vote for the Employee Free Choice Act in the last congress, says he’s not longer supporting it. He has a nominal rationale, but I think it’s fair to say that an important consideration is [...]


Joe
Comment posted March 24, 2009 @ 5:31 pm

Sorry, Charlie…but you obviously have only gotten your information from a few sources. However, the NLRB offers substantive numbers on this subject. 94% of all union elections happen within 42-46 days after the union files with the NLRB for that election. Those that go longer are often at the request of the unions, who file “blocking” charges. Last year, unions WON 68% of these elections.


Dan
Comment posted March 24, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

People want to make it sound like Specter's move deals a death blow to EFCA, and there is no question that it will be tough for Democrats to find the 60th vote. But there are four Republicans who are said to be open to some type of compromise, first of which is Lika Murkowski, who said as much last month.


Charlie
Comment posted March 24, 2009 @ 8:51 pm

The people who have already left comments on this issue obviously know nothing about the real world when it comes to workers trying to obtain representation by A Union. The present so-called “secret ballot” process under the National Labor relations Board has been so distorted by years of Republican appointed Board members, that it is no longer a viable way to obtain collective bargaining rights. It can take literally years of litigation under the present system for workers who want representation to even come close to an election. If an employer hires one of the many law firms who specialize in the process, the Board is so slanted toward employer wishes that the system can be played for years.
Forget about the overused argument about Unions being in it for the money they get from dues. It no longer makes economic or practical sense to try to organize workers under this process. The system is slanted to such an extent that it does, in fact, make sense for an employer to pay for one of these firms to represent them, because the NLRB process can help them.


Joe
Comment posted March 25, 2009 @ 12:31 am

Sorry, Charlie…but you obviously have only gotten your information from a few sources. However, the NLRB offers substantive numbers on this subject. 94% of all union elections happen within 42-46 days after the union files with the NLRB for that election. Those that go longer are often at the request of the unions, who file “blocking” charges. Last year, unions WON 68% of these elections.


Dan
Comment posted March 25, 2009 @ 3:50 am

People want to make it sound like Specter's move deals a death blow to EFCA, and there is no question that it will be tough for Democrats to find the 60th vote. But there are four Republicans who are said to be open to some type of compromise, first of which is Lika Murkowski, who said as much last month.


Eyes on the Ties » Blog Archive » Social fabric stretched thin
Pingback posted March 25, 2009 @ 11:11 am

[...] Specter to oppose EFCA. (Washington Independent) [...]


Buy Propecia Online
Trackback posted March 25, 2009 @ 12:02 pm

Buy Propecia Online…

http://www.folkd.com/user/buypropeciaonline Buy Propecia Online…


RightOnline Attendees Groan at Specter EFCA Switch | The Lie Politic
Pingback posted August 14, 2009 @ 11:41 pm

[...] EFCA vote faded, are blasting out links to Specter’s previous stances on the issue. In March, TWI broke the news that Specter would filibuster card [...]


Pennsylvania Unions Endorse Specter, the Man Who Killed the Employee Free Choice Act | NEWS Gate
Pingback posted March 30, 2010 @ 8:17 pm

[...] I mean no one saw it coming. The first person to hear about Specter’s newfound opposition was freaking Grover Norquist, who announced the news to a roomful of conservatives one morning. Grover knew before union leaders [...]


Multi Medium » Deja Vu Epic Fail
Pingback posted March 31, 2010 @ 11:40 am

[...] I mean no one saw it coming. The first person to hear about Specter’s newfound opposition was freaking Grover Norquist, who announced the news to a roomful of conservatives one morning. Grover knew before union leaders [...]


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.