The Washington Post story says that chard check will not be included. Nor will the 120 day provision, but business will have an easier time decertifying unions. sounds good to me!
SA wrote:
> Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>>> The story in today's Politico quoted an anonymous union lobbyist
>>> claiming he was "dancing a jig" over these companies' "caving in."
>>> Don't know what to make of that.
>>
>> That he's deluded, of course. No doubt this will be presented as both
>> sides making reasonable concessions, time to move forward, and a
>> meaningless bill will pass. Unions will cheer, write checks to the
>> Dems, and get screwed all over again.
>
> Well maybe. But the story quotes a union lobbyist saying they'll keep
> pushing for the bill in its current form. And the Politico story quoted
> a bunch of anti-EFCA lobbyists who sounded pretty up in arms about it,
> calling it betrayal, as does the National Right To Work guy quoted in
> this WSJ piece.
>
> The whole lobbying strategy was based on saying card check destroys the
> secret ballot, strengthens evil unions and screws business. How can you
> keep making that case when three brand-name retailers are saying they
> have no problem with card check in principle?
>
> If you were a Blanche Lincoln type, wouldn't you feel easier voting for
> EFCA if you could respond to the inevitable Chamber of Commerce attacks
> simply by saying: Well, even Starbucks and Costco said they were okay
> with the general idea of card check.
>
> On the other hand, why are they doing this? To be optimistic, maybe
> these particular companies are doing it because their clientele skews
> liberal and they fear a corporate campaign?
>
> SA
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
530 898 5321 fax 530 898 5901 http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com