As we have been hearing since Saturday June 6, 2008 when Hilary Clinton dropped out of the race for the Democratic Nomination for President, there is a major push to unify the Democratic Party. While I certainly understand the concern since I saw it first hand at the Texas Democratic Convention in Austin, are we not being somewhat too concerned. The Democratic Party has had big fights in the past and they have been able to elect a President. I personally think that the primary season was what the doctor ordered for the Democratic Party. There were so many people that ran for President on both sides and with those different approaches there will be as many different opinions on what should be done. While I do not personally subscribe to the way the Republican Party wishes to govern (or rule in many cases) there were some real differences between the individuals on that side. On the Democratic side there were many people with basically the same ideas on governing but with different ways of getting to same end.
Now there are two. They are vastly different in their approaches to governing and what needs to be remembered is that the Republicans do not offer anything but more of the same in respect to Labor. The Republicans want a consumer-driven health care system which has been proven not to work. The Republicans also do not want the workers of this country to be able to fairly organize at the work place so that they may actually have rights on the job. Their idea of employee free choice is for every state to be a "right to work for less" state where you are completely at will like here in Texas.
The Democrats are 180 degrees the opposite. They want to have a real health care solution where it is not on the bargaining table. They want workers to be able to exercise their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, which would be further augmented by the Employee Free Choice Act, and be able to organize without the fear of losing their jobs.
The Democratic Party and the Labor Movement must, and I mean must, unify if the Labor movement in this country has any chance of being here in the next 10 or 20 years. If you are in the Labor movement you must know the effects of what bargaining health care are and will continue to be if we do not get a solution to the current failure. Regardless of who you supported during the primary season on either side, you must vote your own interest. If your interest is being able to work on a job with safe conditions, good wages to support you and your family, good and sustainable health care for you and your family and justice on the job then you must vote in the Democratic column this fall. If you do not care about those things and/or enjoy having your eyes taken off the prize then I am sure the Republicans will appreciate your vote. They will be so appreciative that they will be more than happy to show you the razor that they will use to slit your throat. While that may sound extreme that it is what the current administration has been doing for the last seven-plus years. If you do not believe me ask the Teamsters. I am sure they will be more than happy to explain what an endorsement of a Republican for President really means.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Labor gets some help...for now.
The U.S. House today approved a three-month extension of unemployment insurance benefits with exactly the margin needed to override a presidential veto, but AP reports the outlook in the Senate is not as good.
The 274-137 vote was exactly two-thirds, a milestone the House could not reach in an earlier vote. Although some Republican crossover occurred in the vote, in the Texas delegation, every Democrat who voted was in support of the measure and every Republican opposed it.
AP notes that George W. Bush has threatened to veto the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said he won't force the issue when Republicans object, but will try to include the measure in a war spending bill.
The 274-137 vote was exactly two-thirds, a milestone the House could not reach in an earlier vote. Although some Republican crossover occurred in the vote, in the Texas delegation, every Democrat who voted was in support of the measure and every Republican opposed it.
AP notes that George W. Bush has threatened to veto the bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said he won't force the issue when Republicans object, but will try to include the measure in a war spending bill.
Texas State Democratic Convention
I am recently back from the Austin, Texas where history was made. We saw the largest crowd of delegates and alternates ever assembled. I was under the impression it was the most since the 1960's but was later told that it was the largest ever. When Chairman Boyd Richie asked how many were making their first convention more than half of the room raised their hand. It was really and impressive sight.
We saw Hillary Clinton, the first viable woman candidate concede her bid and put her support behind the first viable African-American candidate in our history. It was an inspiring moment because through the struggles of this country in recent and past history we were on the the threshold of making America the real "land of opportunity". We saw people of all ilks come together to elect not only delegates to the Democratic National Convention but elect party officers that will lead the Texas Democratic Party into the end of the 2008 election cycle and into the 2010 election cycle.
You may not realize the history of electing party officers but there is true history. With the current and recently past party administration Texas may finally be back in play in down ballot races for the first time since Ann Richards was elected Governor. The state may actually be in play, to a point, in the national election for President for the first time since Lyndon Johnson.
Now, you might be asking what this has to do with Labor and the answer is simple. If we can elect a Democratic President and he has coat tails we can elect more Democratic Members to congress and the first Democratic Senator from Texas since Lloyd Benson. If this happens the efforts of the Employee Free Choice Act and a real health care solution are only a pen stroke away. Here in Texas we could have a Democratic majority in the State House of Representatives for the first time since the late 1990's. That means we could actually get some real employer reform and true Workman's compensation for injured workers. It could also mean we might start putting balance in the two high courts of Texas; the Texas Supreme Court which handles all civil litigation and the Court of Criminal Appeals which handles all Criminal Appeals.
Things are looking up for the working man and woman in Texas with this turn of events. The newly re-elected Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, Boyd Richie, is a friend of labor and is seeking individuals to run for office that are of the same mind. He realized long ago the power labor has and what it stands for to the working man and woman. He wants the State Party and those who run under its' brand to know labor, feel our struggle and fight to the bitter end for labor. We congratulate Chairman Richie on his re-election and look forward to our strong friendship to continue.
We saw Hillary Clinton, the first viable woman candidate concede her bid and put her support behind the first viable African-American candidate in our history. It was an inspiring moment because through the struggles of this country in recent and past history we were on the the threshold of making America the real "land of opportunity". We saw people of all ilks come together to elect not only delegates to the Democratic National Convention but elect party officers that will lead the Texas Democratic Party into the end of the 2008 election cycle and into the 2010 election cycle.
You may not realize the history of electing party officers but there is true history. With the current and recently past party administration Texas may finally be back in play in down ballot races for the first time since Ann Richards was elected Governor. The state may actually be in play, to a point, in the national election for President for the first time since Lyndon Johnson.
Now, you might be asking what this has to do with Labor and the answer is simple. If we can elect a Democratic President and he has coat tails we can elect more Democratic Members to congress and the first Democratic Senator from Texas since Lloyd Benson. If this happens the efforts of the Employee Free Choice Act and a real health care solution are only a pen stroke away. Here in Texas we could have a Democratic majority in the State House of Representatives for the first time since the late 1990's. That means we could actually get some real employer reform and true Workman's compensation for injured workers. It could also mean we might start putting balance in the two high courts of Texas; the Texas Supreme Court which handles all civil litigation and the Court of Criminal Appeals which handles all Criminal Appeals.
Things are looking up for the working man and woman in Texas with this turn of events. The newly re-elected Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, Boyd Richie, is a friend of labor and is seeking individuals to run for office that are of the same mind. He realized long ago the power labor has and what it stands for to the working man and woman. He wants the State Party and those who run under its' brand to know labor, feel our struggle and fight to the bitter end for labor. We congratulate Chairman Richie on his re-election and look forward to our strong friendship to continue.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Special Elections in Congress Help Labor
It would appear that the latest "Specially Elected" Congressman is against Free-Trade. John Tusani posted this blurb on the Working Life Site.
"One of the very under-the-radar things that happened when the Democrats took the seat in Mississippi was that the newly-elected Congressman, Travis Childers is a "fair trade" proponent and won't support any so-called "free trade" deals:
Childers has signed a pledge not to approve any international trade agreements if he's elected, saying that deals such as NAFTA have made jobs disappear."
For those of you reading this that think this is normal for Democrats think again. He was elected in one of the most conservative thinking districts in the United States. Northern Mississippi is tough on Democrats, I know I lived there for a time. This is very progressive and very beneficial to the Labor movement.
"One of the very under-the-radar things that happened when the Democrats took the seat in Mississippi was that the newly-elected Congressman, Travis Childers is a "fair trade" proponent and won't support any so-called "free trade" deals:
Childers has signed a pledge not to approve any international trade agreements if he's elected, saying that deals such as NAFTA have made jobs disappear."
For those of you reading this that think this is normal for Democrats think again. He was elected in one of the most conservative thinking districts in the United States. Northern Mississippi is tough on Democrats, I know I lived there for a time. This is very progressive and very beneficial to the Labor movement.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Free Trade or Fair Trade...?
Joh Tsuani, who has more time to read than I, found this in the Wall Street Journal about what Sherrod Brown had to say about the Colunbia "Free" Trade Agreement.
Sen. Sherrod Brown, one of the best legislators in the Congress on just about every issue but certainly on trade, had an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal yesterday that called "Don't Call Me a Protectionist". Taking on the issue of the so-called "free trade" deal with Colombia, here's the key passage:
Let's focus on the merits of the agreement. Supporters sell it as a free-trade agreement, a great opportunity for American companies because it eliminates tariffs on our products. If that were true, the agreement would be a few lines long.
Instead, we have a trade agreement that runs nearly 1,000 pages and is chock full of giveaways and protections for drug companies, oil companies, and financial services companies, and incentives to outsource jobs now held by Americans.
Nafta. The Central American Free Trade Agreement. China. Now Colombia. We have a pattern in our trade policy that aims to protect special interests, but betray our workers, our environment, our communities.
Let's stop accusing one another of being protectionists. And let us agree that U.S. trade policy – writing the rules of globalization to protect our national interests and our communities – is worthy of a vigorous national debate.
Readers of this blog know that I've made this repeated argument--that we should debate trade and the rules being set up, not dumb marketing phrases like "free trade". Good for Sherrod for pushing this point.
Sen. Sherrod Brown, one of the best legislators in the Congress on just about every issue but certainly on trade, had an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal yesterday that called "Don't Call Me a Protectionist". Taking on the issue of the so-called "free trade" deal with Colombia, here's the key passage:
Let's focus on the merits of the agreement. Supporters sell it as a free-trade agreement, a great opportunity for American companies because it eliminates tariffs on our products. If that were true, the agreement would be a few lines long.
Instead, we have a trade agreement that runs nearly 1,000 pages and is chock full of giveaways and protections for drug companies, oil companies, and financial services companies, and incentives to outsource jobs now held by Americans.
Nafta. The Central American Free Trade Agreement. China. Now Colombia. We have a pattern in our trade policy that aims to protect special interests, but betray our workers, our environment, our communities.
Let's stop accusing one another of being protectionists. And let us agree that U.S. trade policy – writing the rules of globalization to protect our national interests and our communities – is worthy of a vigorous national debate.
Readers of this blog know that I've made this repeated argument--that we should debate trade and the rules being set up, not dumb marketing phrases like "free trade". Good for Sherrod for pushing this point.
Democratic Super Delegates and Trade
John Tusani bring this article to you discussing what the Super Delegates might be thinking. If only it comes out to be true.
I've said before that I believe that the Democratic nomination fight is over, though the hype may drag on for a bit. But, a nice chunk of super delegates--perhaps as many as a dozen or more--may make their choice based on where the candidates stand on trade. And that's a good sign for people who actually care about choices made on the basis of issues.
In early March, I pointed out that Sen. Sherrod Brown and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (both from Ohio) were remaining undecided because they wanted to actually get a very clear understanding of where the candidates stood on trade, particularly on the fate of the so-called "free trade" agreement with Colombia. Congressional Quarterly reported earlier this week that:
According to one list, there are 21 House Democrats in the group of lawmakers that wants to force the candidates to take detailed stands on a series of trade issues such as how they would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, whether they would address trade disparities the lawmakers attribute to the use of value-added taxes in foreign countries, how they would use the tax code to encourage American businesses to keep facilities in the United States, and what steps they would take to create jobs by investing in domestic infrastructure needs.
The group still includes at least 12 undecided lawmakers: Kaptur, Reps Michael H. Michaud of Maine, Bart Stupak of Michigan (who will only be a superdelegate if the Democratic Party seats a delegation from his home state), Joe Donnelly and Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana, Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon, Jason Altmire and Christopher Carney of Pennsylvania, John Sarbanes of Maryland, Ciro D. Rodriguez of Texas, Gene Taylor of Mississippi and Heath Shuler of North Carolina.
Of particular interest is Heath Shuler, not simply because of the upcoming primary in North Carolina. In the 2006 midterm elections, Shuler won in the 11th congressional district by beating incumbent Charles Taylor, in no small part because of Taylor's failure to vote against the so-called "free trade" Central American Free Trade Agreement. Shuler ran two television ads on trade policy during his campaign.
In Indiana, in 2006, Joe Donnelly defeated incumbent Chris Chocola, who supported so-called "free trade" deals like NAFTA, and Brad Ellsworth won his seat in the 8th Congressional district by campaigning against expansions of so-called "free trade".
All this is good news. One of the things that we can take from this election cycle is that we are winning the campaign to move to a much more saner discussion and policy on trade and globalization. It's clear that the Democratic Party candidates, from the outset, have understood that the voters are much more advanced in their grasp of the damage being done by so-called "free trade" (whether the candidates have truly changed their position or not is a different issue). If you want to judge by the results in 2006, expanding majorities in Congress, in the House and the Senate, will be easier if the Democratic Party's candidates reject so-called "free trade" and pledge to embrace a sane approach to globalization and trade--not just because of the moral imperative but as a matter of electoral realities since even Republicans are opposed to so-called "free trade".
So, while I find the machinations and hype over the the race-that-is-over pretty boring, there is a lot of hope to be found in the bubbling up of voter sentiment reflected in the dynamics of the political insider game.
I've said before that I believe that the Democratic nomination fight is over, though the hype may drag on for a bit. But, a nice chunk of super delegates--perhaps as many as a dozen or more--may make their choice based on where the candidates stand on trade. And that's a good sign for people who actually care about choices made on the basis of issues.
In early March, I pointed out that Sen. Sherrod Brown and Rep. Marcy Kaptur (both from Ohio) were remaining undecided because they wanted to actually get a very clear understanding of where the candidates stood on trade, particularly on the fate of the so-called "free trade" agreement with Colombia. Congressional Quarterly reported earlier this week that:
According to one list, there are 21 House Democrats in the group of lawmakers that wants to force the candidates to take detailed stands on a series of trade issues such as how they would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, whether they would address trade disparities the lawmakers attribute to the use of value-added taxes in foreign countries, how they would use the tax code to encourage American businesses to keep facilities in the United States, and what steps they would take to create jobs by investing in domestic infrastructure needs.
The group still includes at least 12 undecided lawmakers: Kaptur, Reps Michael H. Michaud of Maine, Bart Stupak of Michigan (who will only be a superdelegate if the Democratic Party seats a delegation from his home state), Joe Donnelly and Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana, Peter A. DeFazio of Oregon, Jason Altmire and Christopher Carney of Pennsylvania, John Sarbanes of Maryland, Ciro D. Rodriguez of Texas, Gene Taylor of Mississippi and Heath Shuler of North Carolina.
Of particular interest is Heath Shuler, not simply because of the upcoming primary in North Carolina. In the 2006 midterm elections, Shuler won in the 11th congressional district by beating incumbent Charles Taylor, in no small part because of Taylor's failure to vote against the so-called "free trade" Central American Free Trade Agreement. Shuler ran two television ads on trade policy during his campaign.
In Indiana, in 2006, Joe Donnelly defeated incumbent Chris Chocola, who supported so-called "free trade" deals like NAFTA, and Brad Ellsworth won his seat in the 8th Congressional district by campaigning against expansions of so-called "free trade".
All this is good news. One of the things that we can take from this election cycle is that we are winning the campaign to move to a much more saner discussion and policy on trade and globalization. It's clear that the Democratic Party candidates, from the outset, have understood that the voters are much more advanced in their grasp of the damage being done by so-called "free trade" (whether the candidates have truly changed their position or not is a different issue). If you want to judge by the results in 2006, expanding majorities in Congress, in the House and the Senate, will be easier if the Democratic Party's candidates reject so-called "free trade" and pledge to embrace a sane approach to globalization and trade--not just because of the moral imperative but as a matter of electoral realities since even Republicans are opposed to so-called "free trade".
So, while I find the machinations and hype over the the race-that-is-over pretty boring, there is a lot of hope to be found in the bubbling up of voter sentiment reflected in the dynamics of the political insider game.
Teamsters might be "Free At Last"
This is from John Tusani of Work Life. It is interesting but explains a little on why Obama got the Teamster endorsement.
The Wall Street Journal has this interesting story today:
Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.
And...
Neither Sen. Obama nor Teamsters President James P. Hoffa has spoken publicly about easing up federal oversight, a top priority for Mr. Hoffa since he became union president in 1999. On the campaign trail, Mr. Hoffa stresses Sen. Obama's criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement as the big factor in winning the 1.4-million member union's support.
But John Coli, vice president for the Teamsters central region, who brokered the Teamsters endorsement, said Sen. Obama was "pretty definitive that the time had come to start the beginning of the end" of the three-member independent review board that investigates suspect activity in the union. Mr. Coli said that Sen. Obama conveyed that view in a series of phone conversations and meetings with Teamsters officials last year.
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the candidate's position in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, saying that Sen. Obama believes that the board "has run its course," because "organized crime influence in the union has drastically declined." Mr. Vietor said Sen. Obama took that position last year.
The promise to end the government oversight, according to the article, had nothing to do with the Teamsters' endorsement of Obama:...split...
Bret Caldwell, a Teamsters spokesman, said the union's endorsement was "predicated in no way, shape or form" on the consent decree. Mr. Caldwell said that only a court can do away with the oversight, not the president. "The only way that this is going to be resolved is through the court system, there can't be a political solution," he said.
But Mr. Caldwell said the president could appoint people to the Justice Department and courts who also favored ending the consent decree.
"It certainly wouldn't hurt to have a president who came out and said that they would support getting the oversight out of our union," Mr. Caldwell said.
The oversight of the Teamsters dates back to 1989 when the union's leadership agreed to the deal:
The consent decree required the direct election of the union president and other officers by rank and file members, in an election overseen by a court-appointed election officer. (Before, the president was elected by delegates.) It also set up a three-member independent review board to investigate corruption within the union. These elements of the decree are in effect today, while others, like oversight of union finances, have ended.
As an aside, it needs to be pointed out that a number of unions conduct their elections via the convention route, not by direct membership election. I've heard the arguments pro and con on convention elections versus direct membership vote and I don't think that either is the panacea of necessarily better than the other.
The real question is: should the oversight end? It costs the Teamsters $6 million per year to keep up with the decrees' demands. On the one hand, some pretty bad people have been booted out of the union and gone to prison; it's hard to argue--and I don't think that even Hoffa would argue--that that would have happened absent outside intervention.
On the other hand, no union should want the government--given the hostility of the government to union power generally--to control how it operates and have access to its records. And this decree creates some pretty onerous and even preposterous situations that, in the real world, civil libertarians would be up in arms over--there are numerous instances of people being suspended from office for pretty minor things and one would even say acts that amount to having had innocent conversations with people they've known for years.
When is the job done?
View article...
The Wall Street Journal has this interesting story today:
Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.
And...
Neither Sen. Obama nor Teamsters President James P. Hoffa has spoken publicly about easing up federal oversight, a top priority for Mr. Hoffa since he became union president in 1999. On the campaign trail, Mr. Hoffa stresses Sen. Obama's criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement as the big factor in winning the 1.4-million member union's support.
But John Coli, vice president for the Teamsters central region, who brokered the Teamsters endorsement, said Sen. Obama was "pretty definitive that the time had come to start the beginning of the end" of the three-member independent review board that investigates suspect activity in the union. Mr. Coli said that Sen. Obama conveyed that view in a series of phone conversations and meetings with Teamsters officials last year.
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the candidate's position in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, saying that Sen. Obama believes that the board "has run its course," because "organized crime influence in the union has drastically declined." Mr. Vietor said Sen. Obama took that position last year.
The promise to end the government oversight, according to the article, had nothing to do with the Teamsters' endorsement of Obama:...split...
Bret Caldwell, a Teamsters spokesman, said the union's endorsement was "predicated in no way, shape or form" on the consent decree. Mr. Caldwell said that only a court can do away with the oversight, not the president. "The only way that this is going to be resolved is through the court system, there can't be a political solution," he said.
But Mr. Caldwell said the president could appoint people to the Justice Department and courts who also favored ending the consent decree.
"It certainly wouldn't hurt to have a president who came out and said that they would support getting the oversight out of our union," Mr. Caldwell said.
The oversight of the Teamsters dates back to 1989 when the union's leadership agreed to the deal:
The consent decree required the direct election of the union president and other officers by rank and file members, in an election overseen by a court-appointed election officer. (Before, the president was elected by delegates.) It also set up a three-member independent review board to investigate corruption within the union. These elements of the decree are in effect today, while others, like oversight of union finances, have ended.
As an aside, it needs to be pointed out that a number of unions conduct their elections via the convention route, not by direct membership election. I've heard the arguments pro and con on convention elections versus direct membership vote and I don't think that either is the panacea of necessarily better than the other.
The real question is: should the oversight end? It costs the Teamsters $6 million per year to keep up with the decrees' demands. On the one hand, some pretty bad people have been booted out of the union and gone to prison; it's hard to argue--and I don't think that even Hoffa would argue--that that would have happened absent outside intervention.
On the other hand, no union should want the government--given the hostility of the government to union power generally--to control how it operates and have access to its records. And this decree creates some pretty onerous and even preposterous situations that, in the real world, civil libertarians would be up in arms over--there are numerous instances of people being suspended from office for pretty minor things and one would even say acts that amount to having had innocent conversations with people they've known for years.
When is the job done?
View article...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
