Earlier today, we gave you a rundown on Internet reaction to Wal-Mart’s support of employee-mandated health care. Well, now yet another voice has weighed in, and this one has a fairly large pedestal.

In its Opinions section, The Wall Street Journal writes that by throwing its support behind the controversial measure, Wal-Mart may have bought itself some protection by selling out its competitors in the business community.

The employer-mandate endorsement falls into the same self-interest department. A boost in the minimum wage helps Wal-Mart because most of its workers already earn well over the wage floor, and it hurts smaller, less-profitable competitors that can’t afford to pay more. On health care, an employer mandate will also reduce the margins of their rivals. This is especially true for businesses of a slightly smaller size that cannot insure on the same scale or currently don’t reach the 55% of the 1.4 million Wal-Mart employees who are insured through the company. (Another 40% or so are covered by spouses or the likes of Medicaid.)

The piece also offers more speculation as to additional motives for the move:

Businesses are going along with this and other gambits in part because of a prisoners’ dilemma: They’re terrified of being shut out of Democratic health negotiations lest they get stuck with the bill. Wal-Mart may also be trying to pre-empt an employer mandate the Senate is considering that would target companies with predominantly low-wage, low-skilled or entry-level work forces.

Everyday Low Politics [The Wall Street Journal]

It isn’t EFCA, but this week the Oregon legislature took its own step towards ending employer intimidation towards employees seeking to form a union. The Oregon Senate passed Senate Bill 519 - the Worker Freedom Act - by a 16-14 vote. The vote nearly split down party lines, with 16 Democrats voting in favor, and 12 Republicans (plus two Democrats) voting against. The measure now moves to the Oregon House, where a similar bill passed in 2007.

Senate Bill 519, which moved to the House on a 16-14 vote, bars businesses from requiring workers to attend company-organized meetings about politics — including union organizing — and religion. There are exceptions for churches and political parties.

The House bill passed 31-27 in 2007, and five more Democrats have since joined the state house. So, needless to say, the measure’s chance of becoming law are looking pretty good.

With public and legislative support behind the bill - 88% of Oregonians, in a December poll, said they did not think an employer should be allowed to force workers to attend meetings about the employer’s opinion on politics, religion, or union organizing - Oregon’s AFL-CIO President appeared surprised in an April email alert that Republicans were fighting the measure so strenuously. As you will note, the bill doesn’t bar the meetings from taking place - it simply bars employers from taking retribution against employees who choose not to attend meetings on politics, religion or union organizing during work hours.

“SB 519 simply states that an employer can’t discipline or fire a worker for opting out of a meetings on one of these topics. Are our Senators, and are the business associations who opposed this bill, upset that we are limiting their right to fire a worker who disagrees with their political or religious views? That’s all this bill does.”

Read the rest of this story ...

• Harkin May Drop ‘Card-Check’ to Pass Milder Labor-Law Changes [Bloomberg News]
  The chief Democratic sponsor of a measure to promote union organizing says he may have to sacrifice its “card-check” centerpiece in favor of more modest labor-law changes that could clear the U.S. Senate.
  

• Card-check may be stripped from bill [Philadelphia Business Today (Pa.)]
  U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, who sponsored legislation to make it easier for workers to join unions, has said the main provision of the proposal may have to be dropped to get the votes to pass it.
  

• Actor Duvall enters battle to save Va. battlefield [Associated Press]
  Academy Award-winning actor Robert Duvall has fired a verbal salvo against plans to build a Wal-Mart Supercenter near a Virginia Civil War battlefield where Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee first fought the Union's Ulysses S. Grant.
  

Read the rest of this story ...

****UPDATE (12:59pm)****
Both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have released snippets from Senator Specter’s statement this morning, and the WSJ noted that “Vice President Joe Biden had been openly courting his old friend and colleague from the Senate Judiciary Committee, making the case that he could breeze to re-election as a Democrat.” From Specter’s statement:

“When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing. Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.”

It should be noted that this flip comes almost exactly one month after Specter flipped on another issue - namely, ending his support for the Employee Free Choice Act. Could a switch to the left, in a union-heavy state like Pennsylvania, pave the way for Senator Specter to renew his support of EFCA?

From the Washington Post earlier today:

Specter To Switch Parties

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Specter’s decision would give Democrats a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate assuming Democrat Al Franken is eventually sworn in as the next Senator from Minnesota. (Former Sen. Norm Coleman is appealing Franken’s victory in the state Supreme Court.)

“I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary,” said Specter in a statement. “I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.”

He added: “Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.”

Read the rest of this story ...