Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, was on the CSPAN “Newsmakers” show this morning. Asked whether the Employee Free Choice Act will be considered in Congress this year, Trumka said: “I think you’ll see the Employee Free Choice Act come up again. I think you’ll see it probably before the end of the year.”

Before the elections or in a lameduck session? Trumka: “Either one.”

The reason the Employee Free Choice Act has not passed Congress is because 40 Senate Republicans have blocked it, he said.

Oh, pshaw, Trumka. The reason EFCA has not passed is because the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to what the bill would do, opponents have made an effective case that “card check” and forced unionization are antithetical to democratic principles and economic growth. The legislation is extraordinarily unpopular, which is why key Senate Democrats joined Republicans in preventing the bill’s consideration on the floor this Congress.

If it were popular, the President would have already signed the Employee Free Choice Act into law instead of planning to put its provisions into effect through Executive Orders, presidential nominations, and regulatory enactments. (See Shopfloor post, “If EFCA Won’t Pass the Senate, We’ll Turn to Federal Labor Boards.”

Trumka also continued pounding the table for more federal stimulus spending, dismissing concerns about the federal deficit, saying we have a jobs crisis in this country, not a deficit crisis. (UPDATE, 10:58 a.m.: Here’s the exact quote: “We have a job crisis right now, we don’t have a debt crisis right now. The only thing that can possibly make this recession, and this recovery from not stalling and going back into recession is if government continues to do some stimulus spending. And unfortunately, the states aren’t in a position to do that, so it’s going to take aid from the federal government.”)

CSPAN Radio will re-run the interview, about 30 minutes worth, at 6 p.m. Eastern.

UPDATE (11:20 a.m.): An interviewer asks, well, if the Employee Free Choice is so popular, and Democrats control the House and Senate, why haven’t the Democrats brought it to the floor for a vote? Trumka:

The President supports it, the vice president supports it, a vast majority of the House support it, a vast majority of the Senate report [sic] it, and like a hundred and some other bills in this country, 40 Republicans said we’re saying no to everything, and so they’ve stopped it.

It has come to the House and the Senate, remember? It passed by a large majority in the House. It’s been in the Senate where 40 Republicans have said no, just like they’ve said no to extensions of unemployment benefits, to help for state and local government, they’ve said no to everything. It doesn’t surprise us they’ve said no.

UPDATE (11:50 a.m.): Let’s be more accurate about the recent legislative history of the Employee Free Choice Act. In the 110th Congress, 2007-2008, H.R. 800 was introduced on Feb. 5, 2007. It passed the House on March 1, 2007. In the U.S. Senate, the bill failed to achieve cloture on June 26, 2007, with a vote of 51-48, short of the 60 votes needed. The only Republican to vote for cloture was Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylania, who subsequently became a Democrat (and who lost his party primary this spring). Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) was absent.

In the current 111th Congress, H.R. 1409 was introduced in the House on April 29, 2009, referred to committee, with no subsequent action. In the Senate, S. 560 was introduced on March 10, 2009 and referred to committee, with no subsequent action. From July (Sen. Franken’s swearing in) to December 2010 (Sen. Scott Brown’s arrival) the Democrats enjoyed a 60-vote majority in the Senate — enough to invoke cloture — but leadership chose not to pursue a vote because several members of the caucus would have voted no.

The portion of the interview concerning the Employee Free Choice Act is here as an .mp3 file. The host is Bill Scanlan and the interlocutors are David Catanese of Politico.com and Victoria McGrane of Dow-Jones.

Edited and updated for clarity, style.

From the transcript of yesterday’s daily briefing by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs:

Q The President has said that capping carbon emissions is critical to achieving his goals environmentally, on energy, and on the economy. Does he feel strongly enough about that, that he’s committed to using his executive authority to the EPA if Congress will not cap carbon emissions, which is now very much in doubt?

MR. GIBBS: Let me get some updated guidance. I will say obviously that this entire debate, John, is based on — not on some grander policy design, but because a group of states sued the Environmental Protection Agency and the court said that the issue needed to be dealt with.

The question the President has asked and believes, rightly so, is that whether or not we’re going to do that indiscriminately or whether or not we can get everybody at the table and come up with some genuine common-sense ideas that create a path towards energy independence, that improve our national security so we can — we stop exporting hundreds of millions of dollars a day overseas, and to create a market for the very jobs that the President both highlighted last week in Michigan and that we have seen created as a result of some of the investments in the Recovery Act.

Q But does he think the use of the regulatory authority is better than nothing if Congress can’t pass it?

MR. GIBBS: Look, I think we — our great hope is still that Congress won’t find itself in that situation, but instead will do what is necessary to meet the obligations of the court suit and do so in a way that gives everybody input on that decision.

Thanks, guys.

END

Hat tip: Washington Independent, “Gibbs Dodges Questions About EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulation“

Mickey Kaus, “Unions Are Crippling Obama–Exhibit A”:

Unions vs. stimulation: The home “weatherization” jobs in the stimulus bill were subjected to Davis-Bacon wage regulations–a favorite of the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department–under which federal Labor Department officials establish “prevailing wage” rates that must be paid. Why do unions like this system? Because the “prevailing wages” are determined in a way that guarantees they are usually more than the actual market wage, sometimes by large margins.  All that finagling takes a certain amount of bureaucracy, however–and time. ABC’s Jonathan Karl:

According to the GAO report, the Department of Labor spent most of last year trying to determine the prevailing wage is for weatherization work, a determination that had to be made for each of the more than 3,000 counties in the United States. [E.A.]

As a result, the Department of Energy apparently weatherized only 22,000 homes under the program. Another pre-existing program, which doesn’t have to comply with Davis-Bacon, appears to have weatherized about 100,000 homes, if my math is right.

That’s OK. It’s not as if speed was important last year in terms of putting people to work. … Oh wait, it was.

L.A. Times, “Top of the Ticket” blog, “Obama’s federal government can weatherize your home for only $57,362 each.” The Department of Energy has since pushed back against the GAO report discussed. That report is euphemistically entitled, “Recovery Act: Project Selection and Starts Are Influenced by Certain Federal Requirements and Other Factors.”

The Hill today surveys business trade associations and finds, “Businesses lackluster in support of jobs bill.” Excerpt:

NAM spokeswoman Laura Narvaiz said the group supports the additional infrastructure spending in the jobs package as a way to create jobs and growth. But she said the jobs bill needed to be more “comprehensive.”

“We remain concerned … that the House jobs bill doesn’t go far enough to ensure long-term growth and create lasting high-paying jobs,” Narvaiz said.

The U.S. Chamber opposes the reallocation of remaining TARP funds, while the NFIB objects to the lack of a payroll tax holiday.

The Washington Post’s Annys Shin does a nice job describing the cross-border trade problems that the stimulus bill’s “Buy American” provisions have caused with our Canadian partners. In “‘Buying American’ Puts Strain on U.S. Trade with Canada,” Shin reports that the provisions are most troublesome for industries that are highly integrated across the U.S.-Canadian border, exchanging materials and components made in both countries.

Shin also has an apt term for the U.S. approach toward the issue, “indifference.” President Obama definitely played down the issue during the three leaders’ news conference in Guadalajara Monday.

Here’s a collection of headlines from Canada:

• Edmonton Sun, “Obama: ‘Buy American’ won’t hurt Canadian trade“
• CanWest News Service, “Premiers primed to fight ‘Buy American’“
• AFP, “Canada’s Harper warns ‘Buy American’ is ‘risky’“
• Brantford Expositor, “Obama urges Canada to just relax” (Expositor! A fine newspaper name.)

And from The Globe and Mail (Toronto), “Obama underplays Buy American policy”

At Hayward Gordon, a Halton Hills company specializing in industrial water pumps, American business that once made up three-quarters of the firm’s orders is drying up.

“It’s millions of dollars in orders that are starting to pile up,” said John Hayward, the company’s second-generation president who believes the worst is yet to come.

“It’s about to hit us like a tidal wave,” he said. “I have to compete against American companies here [in Canada] and sometimes lose orders to them, and I can’t turn around and compete in the U.S. And there’s a hell of a lot wrong with that.”

Relax, Hayward.

From a news release by the Associated General Contractors of America, “Stimulus Construction Funds Have Little Impact to Date on Companies’ Ability to Hire New Employees, Analysis Finds“:

The stimulus plan appears to be having little influence on construction companies’ ability to expand payrolls to date according to a new industry analysis of the impact of the federal program’s construction spending released today by the Associated General Contractors of America. The “disappointingly” slow pace of construction spending outside of the transportation sector is one of the main reasons for the relatively small impact on new hiring, the group noted.

“While the construction portion of the stimulus is having an impact, it is far from delivering its full
promise and potential,” said Stephen E. Sandherr, the chief executive officer of the contractors association. “With construction unemployment at almost double the national rate, it is disappointing to see so many stimulus programs getting off to such a slow start.”

• View the survey results.
• View AGC’s analysis.
• Listen to the conference call.

The Hill ran a story, “White House eases stimulus lobbyist restriction,” with this thesis:

In a significant change, the Obama administration will now allow lobbyists to meet and have telephonic discussions with government officials regarding economic recovery projects…[snip]

In March, President Obama announced that government officials would not be allowed to consider the views of lobbyists regarding specific stimulus projects unless the requests are put in writing. The materials also had to be posted on an agency’s website within three business days of receipt. Lobbyists have said that the policy was one more example of the administration’s disdain for their industry.

Now, the just-revised rules will allow government personnel to accept meetings and calls from federally registered lobbyists on the implementation of stimulus projects. The head of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, issued a new guidance late Friday regarding the administration’s communications with registered lobbyists about economic recovery funds.

The release of the guidance on the cusp of a summer weekend tells you that the Administration did not want to draw attention to the memo, probably for fear of being accused of hypocrisy or yet more OBama è mobile. Glenn Reynolds gibes, “Didn’t see that one coming, did you?”

We wanted to congratulate the Administration for realizing it went too far. But in reading the guidance, we see many continued restrictions on free speech and the ability to petition the government for redress of grievances. The Obama Administration is still being cavalier about the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens, including but not limited to registered lobbyists.

During the period of time commencing with the submission of a formal application by an individual or entity for a competitive grant or other competitive form of Federal financial assistance under the Recovery Act, and ending with the award of the competitive funds, you may not participate in oral communications initiated by any person or entity concerning a pending application for a Recovery Act competitive grant or other competitive form of Federal financial assistance, whether or not the initiating party is a federally registered lobbyist. This restriction applies unless:

(i) the communication is purely logistical (Part A above);
(ii) the communication is made at a widely attended gathering (Part B above);
(iii) the communication is to or from a Federal agency official and another Federal Government employee;
(iv) the communication is to or from a Federal agency official and an elected chief executive of a state, local or tribal government, or to or from a Federal agency official and the Presiding Officer or Majority Leader in each chamber of a state legislature; or
(v) the communication is initiated by the Federal agency official.

So this remains forbidden: “Hi, John? I do hope you’ll take a look at Project 42. It will save the taxpayers $10 million. Thanks!”

And from the FAQ:

Q: I have received a request to meet with representatives of a corporation that has filed an application for a competitive grant. The representatives want to discuss the merits of the corporation’s proposal. The representatives are not federally registered lobbyists. May I speak with them?
A: No. Because the corporation has filed an application for a competitive grant, its representatives may not initiate communications with you orally about the merits of the application or proposal.

Bottom line: The White House forbids legitimate advocacy as improper. And, it’s depriving itself of useful information.

Earlier posts:

• “How Dare You Petition the Government, Expanded”
• “Shut Up“

UPDATE (5:24 p.m.): The anti-business activists at Citizens for Reponsibility and Ethics in Washington, which protested the original rules, call the revised guidelines “smart policy.” They don’t really say why, though: “It is just good policy that once an application for a competitive loan or grant has been filed, no one – registered lobbyist or not – can lobby the government official responsible for handing out the taxpayer funds.” That’s just an assertion, which in effect endorses this position: One someone applies for a grant or loan under the stimulus, they no longer can petition the Executive Branch.

And they call that policy smart?

The Senate now recesses until 8:30 p.m. for the President’s address.

UPDATE Here’s the roll call vote.

In other labor-related news…

AP, “Iowa labor measure nears failure; 1 vote short“:

DES MOINES, Iowa – Barring a last-minute change of heart that no one expects, the first major labor measure the Iowa Legislature has tackled will go down to defeat when lawmakers convene on Monday.

Democrats who control the House kept the chamber in session throughout the weekend after a measure which would force contractors bidding on public projects to pay the prevailing wage got 50 votes, one vote short of approval.

Legislative leaders say they don’t expect that to change and there is no sign that someone will change their vote.

So that’s Iowa lawmakers looking out for the interests of taxpayers first, rejecting labor’s efforts to make projects unnecessarily expensive. Good.

Too bad the federal stimulus bill was full of Davis-Bacon requirements so infrastructure dollars won’t go as far as they should.

And here in D.C., political freedom reaffirmed, “Court: State can stop union political deductions“:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a state law banning local governments from letting workers use payroll deductions to fund their union’s political activities, a decision that could strike at organized labor’s ability to raise funds at local levels.

Five labor unions and the Idaho state AFL-CIO successfully argued in lower federal courts that a 2003 Idaho law forcing cities, counties and school districts to eliminate a payroll deduction funding union political action committees violated the First Amendment.

“Idaho’s law does not restrict political speech, but rather declines to promote that speech by allowing public employee checkoff for political activities,” Chief Justice John Roberts said as the court voted 6-3 to overturn those rulings.

The Senate has begun voting on final passage of H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus bill. (Readthestimulus.org) UPDATE: Passes 61-37. Roll call vote here.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in his final floor statment before the votes, noted support for the bill from a variety of groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber, and the AFL-CIO.

The Hill reported on support for the bill from business groups today, “Business groups that sought tax cuts now back centrist-brokered stimulus.” Excerpt:

“Unless significant changes are made, we will key-vote the bill that comes to a vote in the Senate” on Tuesday, said Dorothy Coleman, NAM’s vice president for tax and domestic economic policy.

NAM, which has come under attack from some Democrats for being tied too closely to the GOP, did not score the vote last week in the House.

Coleman also said that she wished more Republicans would be drawn to the stimulus and end up for voting for it.

“I hope so. We are in extraordinary times. We feel a balanced spending and tax relief package to revitalize our economy is needed. All of our members are on the frontlines of this crisis and are very eager to see some help from Washington,” Coleman said.

Tax cuts geared toward businesses, along with increased federal spending on infrastructure in the Senate bill, have attracted business  support.

The NAM did, indeed, “Key Vote” the bill. NAM Executive Vice President Jay Timmons sent a Key Vote letter to the Senate this morning.  You can read the letter in the extended entry immediately below:

(continue reading…)