The Wall Street Journal editorialists consider the language a modified Employee Free Choice Act that Senator Specter claims will be the basis of legislation that could pass the Senate, judging by his comments to the AFL-CIO in Pittsburgh, that is. From “A Gift for Labor“:

In place of this proposal to automatically unionize if more than half the employees sign union cards, they are proposing an election within a week or so of a minority of employees petitioning for a union. This shotgun vote is intended to deny employees the kind of educated choice that comes with a proper discussion of the merits of unionization informed by both management and labor.

The new old “card check,” according to Mr. Specter, also gives unions unprecedented access to the workplace and meetings between employers and employees before a vote to unionize. Last we checked the Constitution, even in the age of Obama private companies haven’t signed away their property rights.

An equally problematic binding arbitration provision stays in. This idea would let a federal arbitrator impose a contract if the employer and a newly organized union aren’t able to agree within three months. In other words, a government-sponsored agent would decide what salaries and benefits management will have to pay its employees. Throw in the expanded access to company property, and this so-called compromise bill may be worse than the original.

The National Association of Manufacturers’ position is that the Employee Free Choice Act is at its heart a destructive, jobs-killing piece of legislation from which no compromise can be drawn. Senator Specter’s version proves the point.

The Hill, “Senate Democrats pull back on Specter’s card-check prediction“:

Democratic senators on Wednesday downplayed Sen. Arlen Specter’s (D-Pa.) prediction that the chamber would pass a contentious union-organizing bill this year, saying they are in the process of shoring up support for a compromise that is being hashed out.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), one of several negotiators working to reach agreement on a modified version of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), also known as card-check, said they have made progress toward a deal but have yet to ink one.

Several Democrats on Wednesday confessed to knowing nothing about a proposed deal, and the party’s top two leaders in the conference called the card-check proposal a work in progress.

The remarks of Sen. Specter that prompted this flurry of checking and double-checking were delivered to the AFL-CIO convention in Pittsburgh, where the Senator declared, “We have pounded out an employees’ choice bill which will meet labor’s objectives.” The Hill today quotes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who, when asked about a deal, said, “I’m not aware of any.”

A month earlier Sen. Specter sparked a similar flurry of speculation when he told the lefty bloggers at Netroots Nation that he would vote for the Employee Free Choice Act. The comments were followed up by clarifications, explanations, and the recognition that nothing had actually changed since a group of Democratic Senators met in July to kick around possible changes to the Employee Free Choice Act.

As for this week’s news: Nothing has actually changed since a group of Democratic Senators met in July to kick around changes to the Employee Free Choice Act.

Reacting to Sen. Specter’s claim that he had “pounded out” an agreement on the Employee Free Choice Act that labor could accept. From The Wall Street Journal, “Specter, Unions Disagree on Path for Overhaul of Labor Laws“:

Union leaders and business groups kept their distance from Mr. Specter’s effort.

Incoming AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said card check legislation was still in play. The chairman of AFL-CIO’s organizing committee, Larry Cohen, said that until there were 60 Democratic-controlled votes in the Senate, “We don’t even want to finalize a bill, because who are we discussing it with?”

Business groups expressed continued opposition. The National Association of Manufacturers said the modified version outlined by Mr. Specter was unacceptable.

“The prompt certification that he’s talking about is code for ambush elections,” said Jay Timmons, the trade association’s executive vice president. He added that the arbitration proposals still allowed “a government-appointed bureaucrat to make decisions which need to be made at a local business level.”

Speaking to the AFL-CIO’s Annual Convention this morning in Pittsburgh, PA, Senator Arlen (D-PA) claimed that a deal has been “pounded out” on the Employee Free Choice Act that would be totally satisfactory to organized labor.

The Senator said that framework of such a deal would embrace the core principles of the original legislation, including quick certification of labor unions and some form of binding arbitration for union contracts. The Senator expressed hope that such a deal could be passed by the Senate before the end of the year.

While the Senator didn’t say that actual legislative text has been written, the framework that he laid out in his remarks today demonstrates that any such alternative bill will still be based on the Employee Free Choice as originally written. That bill’s fundamental goal is to create an environment that skews the balance of our labor law system in favor of union organizers.

Seth Borden at the EFCA Report has more information on what the impact of Specter’s proposed outlines would mean.

The NAM remains opposed to any proposal that may stem from the fundamentally flawed card check bill, including provisions that would allow government-appointed arbitrators to set the terms of labor contracts.

Netroots Nation, the Pittsburgh conference of peevishly progressive (and effective) online activists, heard this morning from Pennsylvania’s two candidates for the state’s Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate: Sen. Arlen Specter and Rep. Joe Sestak. A questioner asked Senator Specter about his position on three major pieces of legislation pending in the Senate — health care, cap and trade, and the Employee Free Choice Act. The Senator has previously said we would not vote for cloture on EFCA, but today he seems to have a different position. The exchange:

Ari Melber: “…we’ll go to the third question. In stitching these together is it fair to say that on the climate change legislation, on employee free choice, on a public option health care plan, those will all be areas where you’ll be with the majority for cloture to have these up or down votes?”

Sen. Specter: “Yes, no doubt about those three issues at all.”

To see the video of his remarks, click here. The Hill has an account of the remarks here.

EFCA is a moving target these days, and it’s unclear what theoretical legislation Senator Specter was referring to. He has expressed support for a “modified version,” perhaps a “compromise” he works out with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA).

But the Employee Free Choice Act is fundamentally flawed, designed to force to employees into unions against their individual self-interest and to damage any businesses that resist unionization. There is no compromise that can flow from any version of the Employee Free Choice Act. A vote for cloture by Senator Specter would do a great disservice to his constituents and the nation’s economic vitality.

UPDATE (2:37): Good insight from Greg Sargent at The Plumline, his Washington Post blog, “Specter To Netroots Nation: I’m Voting For EFCA. Specter To National Press: I’m Voting Against Card Check.” The unions are indeed blogshouting their supposed victory today, but as Sargent notes, “It’s understandable that EFCA backers are psyched by Specter’s declaration today. But it seems worth keeping in mind that Specter has been known to, shall we say, tailor his message to his audience.”

UPDATE (Monday, 10:55 a.m.): More from The Truth About EFCA.

At today’s townhall meeting in Lebanon, Pa., Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA), responded to a questioner who objected to the Employee Free Choice Act. The Senator’s response:

You raised a question of Employee’s Choice. That bill is in a process of being negotiated. There will not be a timeline which will be so fast that people will not have an opportunity to understand what the issue is.

You comment about the secret ballot. I think we have to maintain the secret ballot, which you agree with. (Applause). We tried to work through the other facet of it, arbitration for last-best offer, but we’re….bearing in mind the concerns and worries that you raised.

Thereby confirming that final-offer arbitration remains the supposed point of “compromise.” (Background on arbitration from The Competitive Enterprise Institute and a recent AP story.) And we repeat the observation that Sen. Specter and Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) are talking “compromise” only in the most narrow of senses, i.e., an agreement between the two men. A more accurate description is a “a version of the legislation that could reach 60 Senate votes.”

And, oh yes, it was a raucous, loud, combative townhall meeting. Shown on live national television.

To the media, townhall meetings are this year’s version of shark attacks. Looking back at the risible coverage of summer of the shark, we should now know that hamsters bite more often than constituents.

UPDATE (2:40 p.m.): In the Mid-Atlantic states, we also experienced The Summer of the Snakehead. It’s quieted down in Crofton, Md., since then.

UPDATE (2:50 p.m.): Granted, snakeheads have established themselves in the Potomac. The Washington Times recently had good column on catching and cooking them.

As noted here and here, Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) is sponsoring a $1.6 billion tax break for trial lawyers, allowing them early deductions for loans to finance contingency fee lawsuits.

The Senator has now introduced another bill that benefits the litigation industry, in this case, the class-action securities lawyers. (Remember “King of Torts” William Lerach, who went to federal prison for his schemes.) The bill, S. 1551, is called the Liability for Aiding and Abetting Securities Violations Act and is is meant to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Stoneridge Investment Partners LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta Inc.

The Wall Street Journal’s opinion page today describes what that means. From “The Specter of Unlimited Liability“:

In 2000, Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola agreed to sell cable boxes to Charter Communications, which was creative in booking these deals and had to restate its financial results. Scientific-Atlanta and Motorola had done nothing more than enter into contracts with its customer, Charter, on terms requested by that customer, and had accounted for the deals properly. Nonetheless, the Stoneridge investment firm sued the two suppliers, alleging a “scheme” against Charter investors.

In striking down this suit, the High Court called the case “a private cause of action against the entire marketplace in which the issuing company operates.” It also pointed out that Congress decided not to provide a private cause of action against secondary parties when it passed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995 and Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002. The Securities and Exchange Commission already has the authority to punish fraud and distribute fines to victims. Private lawsuits are about trying to use expansive liability claims that distort justice and harm the shareholders of innocent but deep-pocketed companies.

And private lawsuits are what the bill from Senator Specter and Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) would encourage.

The NAM filed an amicus brief in the Stoneridge case. More …

• Am Law Litigation Daily, “There He Goes Again: Arlen Specter Now Wants to Roll Back Stoneridge, Too
• WSJ Law Blog, “Specter, Other Dems, Looking to Reverse Huge Securities DecisionSpecter Law Would Let Investors Sue Fraud Accomplices
• Bloomberg, “Specter Law Would Let Investors Sue Fraud Accomplices“

New York Times, “Democrats Drop Key Part of Bill to Assist Unions“:

A half-dozen senators friendly to labor have decided to drop a central provision of a bill that would have made it easier to organize workers.

The so-called card-check provision — which senators decided to scrap to help secure a filibuster-proof 60 votes — would have required employers to recognize a union as soon as a majority of workers signed cards saying they wanted a union. Currently, employers can insist on a secret-ballot election, a higher hurdle for unions.

The abandonment of card check was another example of the power of moderate Democrats to constrain their party’s more liberal legislative efforts.

Other interpretations:

• It’s another example of the failure of bad ideas. (It does happen, even in Washington.)
• It’s another example of big labor suffering from being out of touch with basic democratic principles and economic realities. Call it arrogance, if you like.
• It’s another example of Democrats successfully negotiating with Democrats to stop a bill that would hurt Democrats.

The Times’ Steven Greenhouse reports further:

Though some details remain to be worked out, under the expected revisions, union elections would have to be held within five or 10 days after 30 percent of workers signed cards favoring having a union. Currently, the campaigns often run two months.

In which case unions achieve the advantages they would have gained through card check provisions: You can intimidate 30 percent of employees to sign a card, and then ram through an election before the employers have a chance to explain their point of view. Labor organizers want employees to hear ONLY the union perspective and then vote in a climate of artificial crisis.

Meanwhile, binding arbitration — a process that denies both employers and employees a voice — remains in the bill. Any labor bill that contains binding arbitration is unacceptable to employers, who need to actually run their companies in order to create products and pay employees.

Congress should not be “compromising” such fundamental principles away.

UPDATE (9:43 a.m.): More from The Truth about EFCA.

From the Wall Street Journal, “Specter Suggests Changes to Union Bill.”

Sen. Arlen Specter is floating two compromise proposals on a contentious union-organizing bill to gauge the business community’s willingness to accept the changes and find a middle ground on the bill, according to people familiar with the discussions.

Compromise. Right. From the Latin com — with — and promiterre — who are you kidding.

The radical restructuring of U.S. labor law that Sen. Specter (D-PA) is considering includes mail-in ballots in union organizing elections, ostensibly to preserve an employee’s choice, and some modified version of binding arbitration to include an element of “last best offer” negotiating. So employers and employees would have to live under government-imposed contract terms, reached by a more complicated process than proposed under the current version of the Employee Free Choice Act.

While some politicians and organized labor involved will no doubt continue to use the anodyne “compromise” in describing changes to their proposed Employee Free Choice Act, the media really ought to drop the term. When like-minded parties eager to achieve a politically palatable, sellable piece of legislation make changes, it’s not a compromise. It’s packaging.

Some helpful reading, including commentary on President Obama’s EFCA remarks in New Mexico.

• Heritage Foundation, James Sherk, “What Employer Advantage?”
• EFCA Report blog, “President Obama Remarks on Need for Compromise on EFCA“
• El Nuevo Herald, “MEL MARTINEZ: El voto secreto“
• Newsweek Blog, “Specter on EFCA: Yes. No. Maybe.”

The Washington Post today takes an editorial shot at the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers for opposing any talk of legislative compromise in Congress over the Employee Free Choice Act.

From the lead editorial, “The Imperfect Union Bill”:

WE HAVE SAID before that the Employee Free Choice Act is a flawed solution to a real problem: unfair barriers in the way of union organizing. We have been critical of the labor movement for its reluctance to consider alternatives that could level the playing field between labor and management. So we have, we hope, some standing to criticize a leading management group for its absolutist stance against not only the Employee Free Choice Act as written but also against compromise proposals. Instead of engaging in a good-faith effort to fix the problem, the group, the Coalition for a Democratic Workforce, chooses to deny that there is a problem.

A few quick thoughts:

This is a classic example of Washington political thinking that elevates process over substance, viewing compromise and consensus as valuable in and of themselves. To the vast majority of NAM members, businesses small and large, the possibility of forced unionization and a government-imposed binding arbitration are matters of life and death. A “compromise” looks like, “Please, just kill us a little bit…later.”

And who is it exactly doing the “compromising” up on Capitol Hill? Senator Tom Harkin compromising with Sen. Arlen Specter? The AFL-CIO compromising with the Teamsters? Starbucks with Costco?

As for denying there isn’t a problem, here are the basic facts from the National Labor Relations Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

• Union membership is on the rise (400,000 new members last year)
• Unions are winning most of the elections (unions won 66.8 percent of all elections in 2008)
• Elections take place in a timely manner (94% within 56 days)

Organized labor does not win every union organizing election, and that’s “the problem” they want the Employee Free Choice Act to fix. But labor has never engaged in good faith discussion about the issue, starting with its decision to dishonestly represent the bill as “free choice.”

Given that the legislation is a raw power grab by organized labor, where’s there any room for compromise?

We close with these thoughts from a Democratic Senator known for his belief in good faith negotiations and willingness to broker compromise, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE):

You take away the arbitration issue, and you still have the “card check,” so that doesn’t work. You take away the ‘card check’ and you still have the arbitration problem. And if both go away, you’re left with nothing. It’s a fool’s errand to do this. I just don’t see an agreement happening.