The Labor Political Report

Thursday, March 13, 2008

One take on the New York Governor Mess

I have been away for a while but I thought I would put this up. It is an article by John Tasani and it is his view on the Eliot Spitzer and how he rated for labor.

There isn't going to be much oxygen left in the public space to remember what Eliot Spitzer has done for organized labor. I'm not going to argue he was perfect in this area--which politician is? But, here are three things to remember:1. I think he was 100 percent right to propose granting drivers licenses to undocumented workers. Period. And the labor movement left him hanging on this one. That was our mistake.2. He signed an executive order giving 50,000 child care workers the right to have a union (meaning, recognizing them as employees). If it wasn't for that order those folks would continue to be among the most abused people in the service sector.3. The road to labor hell is paved with mountains of regulations that are on the books but never get enforced. The best thing, perhaps, that Spitzer did was appoint Patricia Smith as his Commissioner of Labor (who subbed in as our keynote speaker last night and did a fabulous job). Smith, presumably with the governor's agreement (even though my guess is she has to still battle with the more pro-business elements in the governor's administration), has gone after employers who don't pay workers compensation, don't pay overtime and try to mis-classify workers (claiming they are independent contractors rather than employees). So, maybe while you are talking with people or shooting around emails in the next couple of days recounting the salacious elements of The Story, it wouldn't hurt to remind people that there are a lot of people in New York State who have a slightly better life thanks to his policies.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

The Unions and Their Endorsements...so far

From the National AFL-CIO Website

AFL-CIO Unions on Election 2008AFL-CIO affiliates play a crucial role in educating and engaging 10 million union members and their families about what's at stake for working families in elections. Watch this space: As the election season heats up, more AFL-CIO unions will be covering the issues that will get working families to the polls—and the candidates' positions on them.
Already some AFL-CIO unions have sponsored candidate forums focused on working family issues.
More than 800 AFSCME members and retirees attended a Democratic Presidential Forum on working family issues in Carson City, Nev., on Feb. 21. Sponsored by AFSCME and moderated by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, the forum included candidates Joe Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson and Tom Vilsack. .
AFSCME has Clinton for president.
On May 16, the AFT hosted Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and John Edwards at their Executive Council meeting. On their presidential campaign site, "AFT: You Decide 2008," members were asked to send in questions they most wanted the candidates to answer. AFT selected seven questions out of more than 750 submissions. .
AFT has Clinton for president.

The Amalgamated Transportation Union has endorsed Clinton for president.
The Bricklayers union has endorsed Clinton for president.
The AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department—which represents more than 2 million working men and women—hosted a candidate forum March 28 following the group's legislative conference in Washington, D.C. The trades union members heard from Joe Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson. .
The Communications Workers of America has lauched , a website providing information about presidential candidates. The site also provides a member poll to solicit input for the CWA endorsement.
As a result of member polling, the CWA announced in November that the national union would not make an endorsement in the president primaries.
The Fire Fighters hosted the first bipartisan presidential forum of the 2008 election cycle March 14, in conjunction with the union's legislative conference. Candidates who took part included Joe Biden, Sam Brownback, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, James Gilmore, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson. .
The Letter Carriers union has endorsed Clinton for president.
The Machinists hosted four presidential candidates at its 2007 National Staff Conference. IAM members heard from Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee and Dennis Kucinich. Check out video of the event .
The IAM has Clinton in the Democratic primary and Huckabee in the Republican primary.
The Mine Workers union has Edwards for president.
The Office and Professional Employees union has endorsed Clinton for president.
The Painters and Allied Trades union has endorsed Clinton for president.
The Sheet Metal Workers union has endorsed Clinton for president.
The TCU/IAM has Clinton for president.

The Theatrical Stage Employees union has endorsed Clinton for president.
The Transport Workers has Edwards for president.
The UAW announced in December that the national union will not make an endorsement in the presidential primaries.
The United Steelworkers sponsored a national presidential candidates forum July 5-6 in Cleveland on renewing America’s manufacturing base. More than 1,000 USW members from Ohio and other industrial states were joined by their families at the forum. Candidates who took part included , , and .
The USW has Edwards for president.
The United Transportation Union has Clinton for president.

Stewards Army Beats Verizon Deregulation Drive in Virginia

From the CWA National Web Site-Good Action by both Labor and Politician's
January 17, 2008
Action by the Stewards Army produced a big win in Virginia for Verizon consumers. In response to CWA's campaign to safeguard Verizon consumers and quality service and keep oversight of a critical public utility, Verizon has dropped its efforts in the state legislature to end the regulation of the sale of a telephone company.
District 2 staff, CWA locals throughout the state and the Virginia AFL-CIO are continuing to fight Verizon's attempt to end regulation of basic telephone service rates across the board for residential and business customers. Bills pending in both houses of the legislature would permit the total price deregulation of Verizon's operations; last year the State Corporation Commission had established a competitive test to assess whether prices could be deregulated.
In testimony to regulators and other public officials, CWA members have cited numerous examples of Verizon's failure to maintain basic telephone service across the state; the company is focusing attention on the build-out of FiOS – fiber optic Internet, television and phone service – in select areas but isn't building these next-generation networks in most communities in the state.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Who is with us...?

John Edwards: In New Hampshire, He's Alone Saying "Union" Unprompted
by Jonathan TasiniSunday 06 of January, 2008
Over the past few months, I, and others, have pointed out that John Edwards is clearly the strongest advocate for organized labor. Up here in New Hampshire, where I've been for the past couple of days, I think that has become more clear. That became clear yesterday.
All the Democratic candidates, if asked, will all profess their love for the labor movement. And I part company, slightly, with some of Edwards supporters, who have tried to paint other candidates, particularly Sens. Obama and Clinton, has being hostile to unions.
I think the important difference is what candidates say, in their messages, when they are not asked specifically about unions. What do the say when they aren't asked specifically whether they support the Employee Free Choice Act (which elicits a no-brainer answer that, of course, every Democrat supports EFCA). Because that, I believe, gives some indication about what we can expect from a president when the hard fights come for the labor movement.
So, yesterday, I was with a group of United Auto Workers activists and leaders who were trudging through a relatively balmy day in Nashua, knocking on doors of Democrats and Independents. In Edwards' standard piece of literature, he specifically talks about "strengthening organized labor" as part of his economic program.
Mentions of unions in Sen. Obama's standard literature: zero.
Mentions of unions in Sen. Clinton's standard literature: zero.

Friday, November 9, 2007

Fort Worth Fire Fighters win HUGE on November 6th

Election day has passed and most did not even know it came and went with the low voter turn out here in Texas. That is if you did not live in some of the big cities with more on the ballot than constitution additions. The Fort Worth, Texas Fire Fighter took a huge step forward with winning collective bargaining rights. The right will be similar to the Postal Workers in that the Fire Fighters will not be able to strike but they will be able to sit down and negotiate benefits, time off, pensions and worker safety. One individual told me that pay was not a question but that they were fighting for insurance for retired Fire Fighters along with pension eligibility after 20 years of service. TC Gillespie of the CWA along with the other members of the Fort Worth Central Labor Council worked hard to get out the vote and now Fort Worth becomes the 22nd city in Texas to have collective bargaining with all or certain sectors of the public workforce. This is huge in looking at the landscape of the Labor Movement in Texas once thought to be a drain on the the national Labor Movement. This goes to show that not only does Labor have a voice in Texas but it can shape the politics of Texas. Congratulations to all that worked so hard to get this achieved and good luck to the Fire Fighters in their future negotiations.

Build it right-Build it Union!!!

This article below comes from Richard with the Union Review. Those of you in the "Trades" should be able to indentify with what he has to say. Of course, all of us in Labor better wake up.

The other day I posted a rant to Union Review called Build it Right - Build it Union. The story went up after a little frustration on my part hearing about different news items taking place around the labor world in the United States coupled with a few workers from different trades telling me that they would be more active in their union movement if they knew how or what to do. The article is a simple piece with links to other stories that we covered at the site -- and it is basically just highlighting a few companies out there that want union money but not union workers. There is an issue with Rite Aid, which is now being discussed at this site, and another with Walgreens -- both of which build nonunion and then reach out to union workers to spend their money with them since they will accept most health plans. This is just the tip of the iceberg, however. Whether it is FedEx, these pharmacies, or Red Wing shoes ... there are endless groups out there who are not building union and who are getting richer with our hard-earned cash. In an effort to spread some news while simultaneously helping people get more active in the union movement, if they choose to do so, I suggested that we start Buying Right - Buying Union. I mentioned a few places that we should do our business with and opened it up for others to help out by sharing with us what companies we should avoid and others that we should not. I welcome the readers here to participate in this as well. Feel free to comment here and/or post at Union Review. If you don't want your comments cross-posted to Union Review, just let me know -- the main thing is to get people active on something that we can all do ... now. In Solidarity, -Richard / UR

Peru "Free Trade" Deal By John Tasani

It wasn't a surprise but it is still disappointing that the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru passed the House yesterday--and, unfortunately, with too many Democrats voting for the deal. We missed a teachable moment--a moment to reframe the debate on trade relations with other countries. Here's what the Democratic Party should be saying.
Actually, mainly in the House, we had been moving in the right direction on opposition to so-called "free trade." Fewer and fewer Democrats have been voting for these agreements (for example, the Central American Free Trade Agreement received only 15 Democratic votes in the House). And as Public Citizen's Lori Wallach points out, 117 Democrats voted against the Peru deal:
Despite intense pressure and lobbying from some Democratic leaders, a massive corporate coalition and the White House, a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives today opposed Bush's Peru NAFTA expansion agreement, echoing the American public's widespread discontent with the status quo trade policy.
That a majority of Democrats opposed the Peru NAFTA expansion - theoretically the least controversial of Bush's remaining trade deals - will put the final nails in the coffins of any further Bush administration expansions of NAFTA to Panama, Colombia or South Korea.
In particular, freshman Democrats voted against the deal, having won their elections partly due to campaign messages that included opposition to so-called "free trade." A drum roll and applause for:
Arcuri (NY)
Altmire (PA)
Boyda (KS)
Carney (PA)
Cohen (TN)
Courtney (CT)
Donnelley (IN)
Ellison (MN)
Hall (NY)
Hare (IL)
Hirono (HI)
Hodes (NH)
Johnson, Hank (GA)
Kagen (WI)
Loebsack (IA)
McNerney (CA)
Murphy C. (CT)
Murphy P. (PA)
Richardson (CA)
Rodriguez (TX)
Sarbanes (MD)
Shea-Porter (NH)
Shuler (NC)
Space (OH)
Sutton (OH)
Tsongas (MA)
Walz (MN)
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Yarmouth (KY)
On the other hand, 11 freshman voted for the deal:
Castor (FL)
Clarke (NY)
Ellsworth (IN)
Gillibrand (NY)
Hill, B. (IN)
Klein (FL)
Lampson (TX)
Mahoney (FL)
Mitchell (AZ)
Perlmutter (CO)
Sestak (PA)
As a New Yorker, I can't resist one passing observation: why Yvette Clarke, who represents some of the poorest people in Brooklyn, would vote for this deal, which will do nothing for her constituents, is beyond me--unless this is some way of her catching some campaign cash down the road and/or currying favor with Speaker Pelosi, who also voted for this deal.
So, why should the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru have gone down to defeat and what should the party be saying about trade? The Democrats who voted for the deal are, in my humble opinion, buying a phony framework for trade. They are being told that the main problem with these deals is that they have not included provisions that address labor and environmental standards. If you look at the narrow frame of the deal--that is, is it good that there will be labor and environmental provisions in so-called "free trade" agreements--you can say, "sure, there is some progress." And since the Peru deal did include such provisions, well, then, some Democrats--and the pundit class--argue there is no reason to oppose such an agreement because we have to be open to the world trading system and not become...horror of all horrors...protectionists.
This is a false and politically idiotic frame to accept.
We are not debating "protectionism" versus "free trade." These are just marketing phrases. There is no such thing as so-called "free trade." Once you use that phrase and defend yourself as not being a "protectionist," you are just reinforcing that the debate is a struggle between two concepts, which are really figments of the imagination.
A secondary frame that is at play is the seductive notion that there is a totally new world out there thanks to technology and so-called "free trade" is an essential element of the new world--we hear that rap from the pundits, economists, and, unfortunately, even a labor leader or two.
This is also idiotic. There is nothing new about trade. We've traded around the globe for all of human history. Technology does allow information and capital to move more quickly around the world.
What we are debating are the RULES that will govern how goods and services are exchanged between people. The central problem of so-called "free trade" is this:
So-called "free trade" agreements start out from the wrong premise: that trade agreements should be primarily about protecting investment and capital and, then, only as an afterthought, do the agreements wrestle with how workers and the environment should be treated.
And what are the rules in the so-called "free trade" agreements?
The so-called "free trade" deal with Peru, like the other similar agreements still, include NAFTA-style Chapter 11 foreign investor rights. These rights encourage U.S. companies to move offshore, as well as open up basic U.S. environmental, health, zoning and other laws to attack (they allow a company to argue that a pro-labor or pro-consumer law constitute an unfair trade barrier and, therefore, needs to be eliminated).
These deals still allow companies to attack prevailing wage laws, recycled content and renewable energy policy remain.
These deals still contain agriculture rules that displace millions of peasant farmers increasing hunger,social unrest, and desperate migration.
These deals still allow food safety limits that require us to import meat not meeting our safety standards.
These deals still allow drug companies to extend patent rights that undermine affordable access to medicine.
These deals still let U.S. firms, such as Citibank, demand compensation if, for example, Peru tries to reverse course and end its awful social security privatization.
So, as you can see, the basic structure of the economic system stays in place. What Democrats are left to defend, then, is a vote that changes things around the edges. As I said before, it's not terrible that there are labor and environmental provisions slapped on to the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru. The problem is that, even if those provisions are enforced, they do not change the basic economic framework being imposed on our citizens and people around the world. And, then, Democrats are left promoting things like retraining--a failed policy--to make up for an economic system that is rapacious.
And, politically, this is just dumb. In the short term, I suppose party leaders see support for so-called "free trade" guaranteeing that campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists will still flow to Democrats. But, that is no guarantee for success.
In 1993, NAFTA passed with the enthusiastic support of Bill Clinton (and, I would point out, Robert Reich, his Secretary of Labor). A year later, Democrats lost the House. Much of the blame for that electoral defeat--which then lead to more than a decade of an unraveling of our basic social compact in America, not to mention the bludgeoning of hundreds of millions of people around the world--was laid at the feat of the failed health care proposal promoted by the Administration.
I would argue that the passage of NAFTA played a crucial role, as well. Many union members were disgusted by the specter of a Democratic president flogging a deeply flawed agreement--and it was known, then, that the deal was deeply flawed--and many of them stayed home in November 1994. A bunch voted for Republicans on non-economic issues. Many of the races lost by Democrats in 1994 were lost by slim margins.
Fast forward to today. Not only did Public Citizen document how many freshman Democrats were elected in 2006 because of their clear opposition to so-called "free trade," but we now know that a majority of REPUBLICANS oppose these bad trade deals.
It is simply insane, morally and politically, to continue to support any vestige of so-called "free trade."
So, to wrap up, what should the frame be? Here is a modest, short version:
Democrats believe that the First Principle of trade should be that it enhances the quality of life of communities here and around the world. Democrats believe that every American should have a job with decent wages and dignity at work. We also believe that our country's role in the world should be to promote strong partnerships with other countries so that we can exchange goods, services, and ideas that raise the living standards of people everywhere. When living standards for people around the globe allow them to provide for their families, then, they are not forced to become economic refugees and move to other countries to survive. Democrats also believe that economic progress is possible without poisoning our air, streams, lakes, food and the rest of our environment.
So, with that in mind, we, then, will work to create trade agreements that cherish those ideas and allow corporations to implement those principles.
It's not hard to figure this out. Do we have the will and the courage to reject corporate campaign cash to make this happen?