Um Yeah, About That Anti-EFCA Pa. Poll...

I hope all the media that report the results of the new anti-Employee Free Choice Act poll of Pennsylvanians ALSO report who paid for it, and how biased the questions were. It was paid for by "Citizens to Protect PA Jobs, a coalition of pro-business groups and citizens." (Questions from the PDF at Pa2010.com)

"Q1. The U.S. Congress is currently debating passage of a new law called the Employee Free Choice Act, otherwise known as “card check” which effectively ends the ability of employees to hold private ballot elections by allowing employees to more easily form a union if union organizers can get a majority of workers to simply sign cards saying they want to unionize. By signing these cards employees’ signatures would then be made public. Generally speaking, have you recently seen, read or heard anything about this issue?
Q2. Again, this legislation effectively ends the ability of employees to hold private ballot elections by allowing employees to more easily form a union if union organizers can get a majority of workers to simply sign cards saying they want to unionize. By signing these cards employees’ signatures would then be made public. Generally speaking, do you favor or oppose passage of this Employee Free Choice Act or “card check” legislation?
Q3. As you may or may not know, U.S. Senator Arlen Specter recently stated publicly that he is opposed to this bill because it violates the long-standing tradition of the private ballot and will lead to more job losses in this recession due to the additional burden on employers. Do you agree or disagree with his position?"

And here's the truth about EFCA and secret ballots, from the AFL-CIO's Q&A about the bill:

Does the Employee Free Choice Act take away so-called secret ballot elections?
No. If one-third of workers want to have an NLRB election at their workplace, they can still ask the federal government to hold an election. The Employee Free Choice Act simply gives them another option—majority sign-up.
“Elections” may sound like the most democratic approach, but the NLRB process is nothing like democratic elections in our society—presidential elections, for example—because one side has all the power. The employer controls the voters’ paychecks and livelihood, has unlimited access to speak against the union in the workplace while restricting pro-union speech and has the freedom to intimidate and coerce the voters.

Roll Call: Labor Has Tough Choice in Pennsylvania

Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, has an article today titled Labor Has Tough Choice in Pennsylvania:

Pennsylvania AFL-CIO President Bill George, a longtime ally of Specter’s, has seen his organization support the Senator in his last three re-election campaigns. But this time around, George was hesitant to predict whether the AFL-CIO would back Specter in 2010.
“He did give us the vote two years ago, and our rank and file don’t know why he can’t give us the vote now, when it’s exactly the same bill,” George said. “And I can’t explain it to our members.”
The AFL-CIO, with 900,000 members, is the most powerful union in the state, and the vast majority of its ranks are Democrats. Specter earned a 61 percent lifetime voting record from the national AFL-CIO, while Sestak earned a 96 percent rating. ...
Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chairman T.J. Rooney said he has Specter’s personal assurance that he is working every day with his colleagues to develop some compromise language for EFCA. After all, Rooney pointed out, Specter isn’t the only Democrat who has said he is inclined to vote against the current version of EFCA.
“I know firsthand from Sen. Specter that he has been working daily over the past few weeks to come to compromise language to be able to get 60 votes to survive a filibuster,” Rooney said. “I can’t think of anybody better to bring about a resolution, especially among other Senators who have concerns.”

ALSO: Tom Ferrick at Pa2010 says Specter should be worried about Sestak and that Sestak has a real shot.

Sestak: If Specter Doesn't Shift His Positions, I'll Run Against Him

Sestak: If Specter Doesn't Shift His Positions, I'll Run Against Him

That's the Talking Points Memo headline on this new development that also comes via Greg Sargent:

Sestak cautioned that Stern didn’t directly address the 2010 primary. But he said the meeting went “great,” strongly suggesting that SEIU is seriously considering supporting him or another primary challenger to Specter. “It was very clear that there were a number of issues we agree on,” Sestak said of his much-anticipated meeting with Stern.
Sestak also confirmed that he’d almost certainly get in the race if Specter doesn’t show a major ideological change of heart. “If he doesn’t demonstrate that he has shifted his position on a number of issues, I would not hesitate at all to get in,” Sestak said.