The Employee Free Choice Act appears to be the bill that will not die. As we move closer to the November elections, and the prospect of lame duck shenanigans, all of the players continue to posture on their side of the issue. The President reiterated his support for the bill, reassuring the AFL-CIO that he would “keep on fighting” to pass it (watch the video here). Speaker of the House Pelosi did the same at a CWA meeting. If a lame duck ploy fails, another strategy is surfacing that could have a major impact on the EFCA and other unpopular legislation. The Democrats are considering a move to change the Senate rules to limit filibusters. If the Democrats hold onto a majority of the seats in the Senate after the elections, when the Senate reorganizes they can implement rule changes with a simple majority. Business groups are keeping the pressure on as well. The Workforce Fairness Institute stepped up efforts to keep the pressure on Congress, hoping to prevent a lame duck coup for the EFCA. States also continue to attempt to outwit federal legislators by enacting laws at the state level that will pass judicial scrutiny. Legislators in Arizona went back to the drawing board after the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that a secret-ballot protection measure violated the state’s single-subject rule. Nevada is also back in action, pursuing another round of the “Save Our Secret Ballot” initiative after their first attempt at a state law change was foiled by legal wrangling. 
Mitt Romney provides an eloquent critique of the EFCA on this 6-minute YouTube video. The administration in Washington proves continually that it will not be deterred in implementing union-friendly policy. Obama’s appointment of Paul Taio to the DOL Inspector General position is another sop to Big Labor. To quote Vincent Vernuccio of the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
The neutrality of IGs [Inspector Generals] is paramount because they are responsible for conducting audits, investigating alleged improprieties, and evaluating the efficacy of departmental programs. IGs are crucial to ensuring that federal agencies comply with all applicable laws and regulations. Having a political operative in this position is akin to letting the fox guard the hen house. If appointed, Tiao would be in charge of investigating fraudulent applications for worker visas. Can a nominee who has advocated giving the right to vote to illegal immigrants be reasonably expected to fairly monitor visa applications against fraud? He will also be responsible for investigating the very unions his PAC received money from in the past. Could Tiao’s past affiliations with organized labor and his predilections for politics present a conflict of interest?
