Jonathan Tasini: Democratic Senators: Mess With EFCA, Face A Primary

Remember Jonathan Tasini? He took on Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Senatorial Primary in 2006. Some of us supported him over her. And even though he lost, he had a very strong point to make about how routinely progressive supporters and positions are sold out by the increasingly corporatist mainstream Democrats, e.g., Harry Reid and NY's two current Senators.

Anyway, Tasini has a great essay which strongly supports the pro-labor Employee Free Choice Act, which is about to be voted on in Congress, and which demands that elected Democratic official get behind this act. Here is an excerpt from his piece.

First, a bit about my view of the state of play. The math has always been pretty simple: EFCA will easily pass the House. The fight will be to get to 60 votes in the Senate. I’ve always suspected the conventional thinking on this was off–conventional, meaning, once Al Franken is seated, bringing the Democratic Senate caucus to 59, it would be easy to recruit one more Republican, more than likely, Arlen Specter, to support EFCA.

The problem is that there are a handful of Democratic Senators who are, at best, weak on labor, and, at best, just outright shills for corporate interests in the Congress. Here is my list: Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln; it’s not clear to me what the replacement Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet will do on the bill, nor do I entirely trust Bill Nelson or Mark Pryor (on Pryor, maybe it’s a family thing: his father was one of two Democratic Senators who would not vote in the 1990s to break a filibuster on the legislation that would have banned striker replacements, dooming the bill and giving corporations even more power to intimidate workers). That’s seven Senators who, in my opinion, you cannot count as passionate champions of EFCA.

Here is what should concern us. I doubt any Democratic Senator will say “I oppose EFCA”. What you will hear is something along the lines, “I think unions are good but there needs to be a balance between the interests of workers and business and the following amendment makes sure there is a balance…” and, not publicly, “thank you, Chamber of Commerce, you can now write out the PAC check for my next campaign…”

And also, this, a possible reply to any would-be anti labor Democratic Senator.

The only way for our country to recover from a collapse in wages over the past three decades is to have a strong labor movement. By every measure, union workers do better than non-union workers. Sen X, you just voted to cripple legislation that would have restored a decent standard of living for working Americans. Why do you deserve another term?

Sen. X, we have seen the greatest divide between rich and poor in generations. You voted to cripple legislation that would have brought America back to be a more fair society for all your constituents. Why do you deserve another term?

Sen. X, you call yourself a “loyal Democrat”. Yet, you undermined the very legislation that would have built one of the party’s key constituencies–working people who belong to unions who vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party’s candidates. Why should the party put you back in office when you undercut its power?

I’d also say that if Harry Reid does not make EFCA a priority–meaning, demanding that the caucus be unified and fight as one–it might not hurt to field a primary challenge to him.

So, let the waverers beware: support EFCA, fight for it and defend it… or face the prospect of cashing in that chit for a job as a corporate lobbyist.

I strongly agree, and hope that the MHPA offers support for this demand from our elected officials to support workers by supporting the Emplyee Free Choice Act!