Despite fears being whipped up by its opponents, EFCA is dead. Not only card check, but any serious labor reform. Labor and Democrats will be playing defense for the forseeable future. But the killer wasn't corporate America, nor was it Rahm Emanuel or Senator Blanche Lincoln. The bill itself inflicted its own mortal wound by allowing opponents to frame it (correctly) as doing away with secret ballot elections. No amount of employer misconduct in the election process or retaliation could overcome the sound bite characterization provided by the fact of removing elections as the preferred way of determining whether a majority of the employees want union representation.

Michael Whitney at Firedoglake has some decidely unkind things to say about President Obama's speech to the AFL-CIO's executive counsel. The Hill has more on the speech, but Whitney is right.

Looks like the overseas view of the NLRB is a bleak one. Many good points raised, but the factual support seems a little thin for some observations that the "toothless" NLRB is irrelevant. Increased budget, increased staffing and increased penalties for violations would quickly revitalize the NLRB's stature and ability to shape labor relations.

Former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, Robert Reich, notes in a recent interview EFCA could still pass in a watered down form (no card check, quickie elections and heavier penalties). Reich also talks about labor's future, and its need to invest in organizing personal service workers.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka declared labor would distance itself from Democrats unsupportive of labor's agenda. This pronouncement was treated as news by some, but it isn't really a new position. Just ask former Arkansas senator Blanche Lincoln. But Meyerson's WaPO opinion piece places the move in proper context, and the context is a bleak one for labor.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports the AFL-CIO has removed the giant EFCA banner which has hung for a year on the outside of the labor federations Washington headquarters. While this symbolic gesture is greeted with pleasure in Chamberland, it likely means that labor is shifting away from its public campaign to amend the National Labor Relations Act only to focus on less visible change through rule-making and other actions by the NLRB.

Private-sector employers (including labor organizations) whose workplaces fall under the NLRA would be required to post the employee rights notice where other workplace notices are typically posted. If an employer communicates with employees primarily by email or other electronic means, the notice would be posted electronically as well. The notice would be available from the agency’s regional offices and could also be downloaded from the NLRB website.

Here is a young author that enthusiastically embraces repeal of the National Labor Relations Act and embracing strikes and boycotts to empower the masses.

Is this the new issue? Maybe, but it has less chance of becoming law in the next two years than the horrific Employee Free Choice Act ever had. This Red State poster wants to ramp up and bludgeon "teh unions" now that votes can be forced by anti-labor forces in the House. What a waste of time. Such legislation will not get through the Senate, much less past a Presidential veto. Realistic reform might take hold if rational discussions were undertaken by both sides. Yes, the penalties for flagrant violations of the NLRA should be enhanced, even where real remedies might chill an employer a bit in its efforts to remain non-union. But in return, big labor must be willing to back off card check and permit fair secret ballot elections to determine if an un-coerced majority of workers want a union or not. No union should be imposed on a workforce without majority support established by a secret ballot determination of the majority's will.

Jane Hampsher at Firedoglake has a good post on the politics of EFCA, starring Harry, Arlen and Rahm.

American Spectator has a pretty good "obituary" for EFCA.

A former union organizer (20 years) has penned a piece on revitalizing unions for The Nation. Key point, unions need to organize people, not necessarily in unions, but around ideas and causes that really matter to, well, people.

Thats what Randy Shaw says at BeyondChron. The solution to stopping labors decline in membership is not political, it is based on investment in organizing. Randy's right, hard work and organizing are required. Quick political fixes are not happening.

Joe Burns' post at Labor Notes does a good job of explaining secondary pressure as a union solidarity issue. He attributes labor's decline, in part, as a result of the banning of secondary pressure.

Industry Week has a good, non-hysterical piece on EFCA which provides good information on its status and quotes from both manufacturing groups and labor. Bottom line, passage is unlikely, but labor remains optimistic.

This John C. Ryan piece at Huffington Post provides insight into the EFCA issue. Interesting points about union discrimination affirmative action and diversity. All in all its a pretty non-hysterical look at views on EFCA by current union members.

"Third generation union organizer" Mike Elk's piece confirming EFCA is dead started it by suggesting the EFCA battle is one with larger themes and objectives than, uh, EFCA. Then came the crying "fowl" in this post by J. Justin Wilson claiming the EFCA fight is war by proxy in "a larger conflict about political sway, public opinion, and economic ideology." One is forced to pause here and consider whether Wilson is referring to Galliformes or  Anseriformes, or as is likely, neither, but I digress. Elk retorts at Firedoglake calling Wilson "the corporate version of that creepy hit man from No Country for Old Men." Elk's position? Wilson, tool of Wall Street, needs to continue destroying unions to continue destroying the economy. You can't make this stuff up . . .

Four states (Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah) passed provisions requiring secret ballot elections to determine a union's majority status. First, it is extraordinarily unlikely the NLRB will abandon secret ballot elections, so any petition would be processed under the current, long-standing secret ballot election procedures used by the NLRB. As for voluntary recognition situations, under which employers and unions may by-pass the election process, the effect is less certain, but absent a major rethinking of federal preemption, I do not see how states can permissibly regulate the process of determining majority status by card check or other non-election evidence that a majority of the employees support unionization.

This piece at progressive site Firedoglake inconsistently and inaccurately describes the effect of old EFCA and its card check provisions. On the one hand he says EFCA allows prompt unionization, while on the other says it does not eliminate secret ballot determinations of majority status, which it does de facto. The interesting part is the guy does understand human resource management, at least the employee participation and motivation aspects. The thinking goes awry when he embraces quickie unionization as an appropriate counterpoint to unilateral management action, which the poster seems to assume, is always is detrimental to employees. But what occurs when an emotional, but insignificant issue sweeps through a workforce prompting card signing, resulting in unionization of a workplace under EFCA. Quickie determinations of majority status may not be enduring ones. Because EFCA provides no corresponding method for decertification on an expedited basis, employees cannot act immediately, in ways the poster suggests empowers them appropriately when dealing with management. The same check on union excesses is needed, but absent because unions are provided a period of irrebuttable presumption of continuing majority status.  To be intellectually honest, EFCA proponents must address this logical flaw.