Brummett blogs about talks with a union leader who thinks practical political considerations — inability to break a Senate filibuster — could lead to compromise on card check legislation.
I raised this very prospect with an Arkansas AFL-CIO official yesterday. For now, he said, tactics dictate that it’s too early to talk about compromise. But such talks are probably inevitable. (For Pryor and Lincoln, probably better for them for a failed up-or-down vote on the filibuster. Then they’re off the hook completely.)
It would be nice to see the management side offer something meaningful by way of compromise. That has not been forthcoming from major business lobbies. They like the situation now — utterly in favor of management.
Depressing, to me, was a “third way” offered recently by some employers known for progressive outlooks — Costco, Whole Foods and Starbucks. Costco has some union workers. Starbucks provides health insurance. Whole Foods has resisted gargantuan executive pay, pegging its top earner’s compensation to a reasonable multiple of hourly wage earners’ pay. Their idea of a compromise was primarily tougher penalties on companies that don’t bargain in good faith and some unspecified time limit before an election can be held. No card check. No binding arbitration. When even progressives give so little, you have to wonder what, if anything, is likely to come from any compromise approved by the major business lobbies. You can understand why many in labor are reluctant to compromise, preferring to seek support from politicians they helped elect.
Ernie Dumas, as it happens, has another great column on the general subject this week. Check it early, on the jump.