Pat Toomey, President of Club for Growth, pens an impassioned op-ed criticizing the Employee Free Choice Act, which reads in part:
The Employee Free Choice Act actually would take away employees’ choices by essentially forcing them to unionize. Despite the claims of this legislation’s advocates, it is a relatively simple matter to form a union under current law. If there is authentic employee support for unionizing, then organizers need only win a majority of votes in a private balloting process.
The legislation at issue would replace the freedoms protected by fair elections with the intimidating, divisive card-check policy. Workers could be directed to sign authorization forms in public – in front of coworkers and union officials. The opportunities for intimidation and coercion are obvious.
As Americans, we know that the right to a secret ballot is a cornerstone of a democratic society. Any proposal to deny voters a secret ballot in presidential, congressional or local elections would be considered ludicrous. So why should workers voting on their fates in the workplace be denied the same fundamental right?
Once this card-check procedure puts a union in place, mandatory dues would be deducted from workers’ paychecks.
Surely, middle-class families can’t afford to lose more of their hard-earned income against their will.
The law also would invite more of the kind of government overreaching we have seen in Detroit. For instance, it calls for government arbitrators to resolve contracts without votes by workers.
But it is not Toomey’s Club for Growth position that makes this op-ed noteworthy; it is his potential candidacy as a primary challenger to Sen. Arlen Specter. Specter beat Toomey in 2002 in a spirited race, but the threat of a re-match looms large and may be a greater threat to Specter than a general election face-off against Chris Matthews or a lesser-known Democrat.
So why is the Employee Free Choice Act key here? Specter, in the past , has supported “card check” — when there plainly weren’t enough votes to break a filibuster. Now his vote may be critical. But it remains to be seen, with Toomey lurking in the wings, whether he will be so enamored of card check legislation, which is now one of the top issues for conservatives — the very people who will turn out in an off-year primary race.
Political observers know that Specter is a survivor. He may irritate the base from time to time, but his masterful conduct of two Supreme court justice hearings during the Bush years earned him some kudos even from conservative critics. And he’s well aware of a potential challenge. That, frankly, may be a factor in his decision to conduct an exhaustive and probing hearing of Attorney General nominee Eric Holder. But a surefire way for him to stave off a primary challenge would be to demonstrate some deserved skepticism about card check. This shot across the bow by Toomey may test whether that’s what the savvy Specter has in mind.
