At Private Meeting, Top Union Leaders To Plan Huge Campaign To Press For Labor's Demands
At a private meeting tomorrow in Washington, D.C., the most powerful and prominent leaders of the labor movement are planning to finalize the details of a major public campaign to push for what labor is hoping to get from the incoming Obama administration and the new Congress.
The meeting tomorrow morning at AFL-CIO headquarters will provide a glimpse into labor's hopes for the new order in D.C., at a time when a labor resurgence is looking like a real possibility. The big unions played a major role in delivering white union and non-union workers to Barack Obama in the battleground states, and will be expecting a seat at the table next year.
According to a senior AFL-CIO official, the labor leaders -- who could include AFL-CIO head John Sweeney, AFSCME chief Gerald McEntee, and others -- will be putting the finishing touches on plans for a national campaign, including possible TV ads, to press members of Congress for quick passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, one of labor's major agenda items.
The measure, which would give workers the right to join a union as soon as a majority of employees at a workplace say they want to, went down to defeat in 2007 and is likely to provoke huge opposition from business groups again this time around.
The labor heads will also discuss the Obama team's ongoing transition efforts and evaluate whether they think labor has had an adequate role in behind-the-scenes discussions, the AFL official said.
One key topic: How labor can push harder right now for quick passage of an economic stimulus package, which labor leaders want done even before Obama takes office.
It's unclear whether the labor chiefs will try to coalesce around a choice for labor secretary at tomorrow's meeting. Among the names that have been floated for the gig: Rep. George Miller of California, SEIU president Andy Stern, former Rep. Dick Gephardt, former AFL official Linda Chavez-Thompson and former Rep. David Bonior, though Bonior has said he's not interested.
One sensitive topic likely to be discussed at the meeting: How the big unions can press their agenda aggressively right now, without being seen as publicly pushing the administration too hard at a point when it's just trying to find its footing. Labor's agenda dovetails in many ways with Obama's, but labor, just like every other series of powerful interest groups, is trying to strike the right balance in pressing the administration to prioritize their agenda.
We'll bring you more on the meeting after it happens.
If any other group was doing this I would probably be pissed, that is forming a pressure group of sorts for someone who hasn't even taken office (and making it public). However, considering it's labor and I believe strongly in America's future being lifted up through organized labor/unions- I say good on them!
It seems like they are trying to go about this in a careful, measured fashion as well.
November 12, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is potentially a big moment for labor.
November 12, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm excited by the possibilities, it seemed until recently that labor was dying a slow death. I hope the Obama Adm. can revitalize the movement that was such a big part of this country when the "Greatest Generation" was young. A much more powerful force in national politics back them as well- think FDR. He hardly had a decision to make back then without first considering the unions.
November 12, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will watch Obama's handling of the unions with great interest. They will be the first, but not the last of the powerful interests who will see his victory as an opportunity to move their agenda forward. This will be particularly interesting in the context of the Big 3 automakers and their crippling pension costs.
November 12, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, Obama's philosophy is closely aligned with Labor, so I agree this is a big moment for them.
November 12, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You nailed it, what a freaking mess that is.
November 12, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The cost of health care is another killer for the auto industry. Fixing health care is part of the solution.
November 12, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The big 3? I'm sorry, they made some bad decisions. Japan's propped up bad companies for years and their economy hasn't gone anywhere for almost 20 years. To me, bailing out the financial companies probably staved off a complete financial meltdown. But how does it help us to prop up industrial companies that have made some idiotic decisions and continue bad practices? Jobs? Yes, I guess.
I'm torn between helping people keep jobs now and the government having to continue to prop up companies that just need to die so the economy can recover and grow in the future (some jobs now vs. more jobs in the future). If we do bail them out, maybe we can divide up the Big 3 into each division (like Ma Bell)so each can actually compete. You know, Plymoth vs Focus vs Saturn vs, Ranger or something.
We can't reward these guys for screwing up.
November 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
eek, I sound like SFC.
November 12, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, is the Employee Free Choice Act the initiative that the right has been characterizing as "taking away the secret ballot" for union elections? Maybe somebody can point me to a good source for filling in the details on this (I certainly don't accept the right's characterization at face value, but I've not seen anything about it from a source I can trust.)
And I agree with Dorn76. Labor needs to also push back hard on this notion that the only reason GM is in trouble is that the unions are greedy. As is the case with the supposed quality issues, this might have been a fair criticism 10 or 20 years ago, but it's not the case now.
-- ARG
November 12, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
From Bob Geiger's blog, he has a good article that sums up the various GOP positions and eviscerates them. Here's some reputable names and their thoughts:
--"The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the secret election process," said Sherrod Brown (D-OH) in rebutting the GOP's silly claim on Friday. "That would still be available. The bill simply enables workers to form a union through majority signup, if they prefer that method."
Brown is referring to the fact that S.1041 would give workers the ability to bypass a special election -- a process which affords employers a lot of time to themselves come in and intimidate workers into voting against their own self interest -- and agree to unionize based simply on the majority of them signing cards declaring their desire to form a union.
“Opponents of American workers are trafficking in the politics of fear, by grossly mischaracterizing the policies in the Employee Free Choice Act," said Ted Kennedy (D-MA) last week. "They’re afraid to give workers a voice, so they’re obscuring the truth. I think it’s important to set the record straight. The Employee Free Choice Act does one thing – it empowers workers. It gives them the freedom to choose – without fear of intimidation or harassment – whether they want union representation. There’s nothing more fair or democratic than that.”
In fact the Employee Free Choice Act does nothing to change employees’ ability to get a secret-ballot election and only empowers them to choose either option. If they want an election, they can have one or, if they fear employer intimidation, they can go with the majority sign-up allowed by this legislation.--
Next up the GOP cries SOCIALISM on the issue. But of course....
Lots of good links in the article as well.
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/06/gop-gives-employee-free-choice-act-fear.html
November 12, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
josephcast gives a good summary above.
Another point is that representation elections in their current form are rigged. Management is free to hold captive audience meetings to spread their anti-union propaganda, while unions have no comparable access to employees. Management also routinely fires workers illegally for union activity, treating the minor and long-delayed slap on the wrist they might get as a trivial cost of doing business. In fact, 30 percent of employers do this and 46 percent of workers report management coercion in union elections. So the notion that the card check option is less democratic than current law is ludicrous; actually card check is majority rule, democracy in action.
A final point that I think should be labor's #1 message in the current environment: EFCA will raise workers' living standards and help America get out of the recession. Union members earn 30 percent higher wages than non-union workers. They're also 59 percent more likely to have employer-provided health coverage and are 80 percent more likely to have pensions. Since EFCA will make it simpler for workers to organize unions, it is the single most efficient way to get the middle class growing again. That's also why FDR made it easier for workers to join unions as a central component of fighting the Great Depression.
What labor needs to do is #1: Make sure Congress acts on EFCA early next year; and #2: Fight to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate to overcome the filibuster. In 2007, Specter was the only Republican to vote for cloture. Depending on the outcome of the three undecided races, they may need to find one or two others. That's also one reason why we need to back Martin in Georgia.
November 12, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great resources at American Rights at Work website:
http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/employee-free-choice-act/home-102/
November 12, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting question. I think one way to finesse it would be for labor to focus on the need for Congress to act swiftly, especially on EFCA. Keep the pressure there while praising Obama. Don't put the heat on him until or less there's any evidence of backtracking.
November 12, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have mixed feelings about big labor. The last time I was in a Union, a couple of my crankiest coworkers agitated for it, and by the time we got Unionized, they were gone, no one left was that excited to work on Union issues.
The Union started dinging our paychecks, and the only thing they really did before I left was defend a couple of scumbag coworkers from sexual harrassment charges which they very clearly deserved.
I support Big Labor in theory, but what I've seen in practice makes me think its a bit of a racket.
And I'm sorry, but the Unions are part of the cost issues at American automakers. When you're paying 30% more for labor, you have to charge 30% for cars. We can't really produce economy cars in the U.S. because the sale prices are too low to cover the high costs of production.
The automakers have their share of poor management and design issues, to be sure. But I have two advanced degrees, and there are workers standing on assembly lines in Detroit, putting the same rivet into the same car door all day long, making higher pay with better benefits than I do.
I'm fine that they're prosperous, but just commonsense-wise, seems like their is an imbalance there that cannot hold forever. Which may be why the taxpayers are regularly asked to bail out the car companies.
November 12, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
'And I'm sorry, but the Unions are part of the cost issues at American automakers.'
Ahh, I think you mis-spoke, I think you meant to say that Unions are the only group working DIRECTLY to raise salaries for the middle class and keep middle class job sin America. And for that they get pissed on by "liberals" who have listened to "free market" conservatives for so many years.
November 12, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I have two advanced degrees, and there are workers standing on assembly lines in Detroit, putting the same rivet into the same car door all day long, making higher pay with better benefits than I do".
And you know why this is? A lot of Americans, because they work in offices, don't identify with those "union" factory workers. But in an information economy, information workers are the equivalent of factory workers in an industrial economy.
The industrial workers had the guts to organize and demand a fair share of the profits from their labor.
Todays information workers just sit by and watch CEO's absorb all the share that used to be shared out to union workers and then complain that they don't get paid more than factory workers.
Wonder how that happened?
November 12, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you in a Union? Sometimes they seem better in theory, or from the outside is what I'm saying.
November 12, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
i have been in a union, when I was 18 i got a job spraying primer in parts at Boeing. I quit after a couple years to attend college. I think took me 8-10 years to get back to that salary as a "white collar" college educated worker.
The difference is, I didn't blame the union, I blamed the non-union office workers who were the equivalent of factory workers but who relied on the "markets" to keep their salaries above minimum wage.
Just as our former fed chairman belatedly realized he couldn't trust business leaders to not bring their companies to ruin, many Americans are belatedly realizing these SAME business leaders consider them strictly as expenses, not as assets, and without any grouping of works to oppose this force, the workers got hosed.
Not that it makes me bitter or anything :-) .
November 12, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell Machinist Union Pres. Tom Buffenbarger that he's not invited. But, he can lattes to the assembled multitude.
November 12, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make that: "he can serve lattes to the assembled multitude."
November 12, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed!
November 12, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Labor makes "DEMANDS"? Jesus, the right wing think tanks have totally sold America on the "lingo" to treat unions with hasn't it?
When big business lobbyists get together to plan strategy or when the Chamber of Commerce meets to plan legislative strategy, do you ever see a headline "Business leaders meet to plan DEMANDS on Administration?".
No wonder unions are on the run when headlines like this show up on TPM. If progressive buy into the "anti-union" framing, what hope do workers have?
November 12, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to echo this reaction. We need to break the mold of tired, worn-out themes and memes about labor unions, and there's no better place than TPM for that to start.
In addition to the above: labor unions are not capital-L Big Labor. They are not a monolithic entity. They are individual, democratically run organizations representing millions of workers.
Labor unions' agenda for the next four years is therefore going to mirror that of the Obama-voting electorate as a whole, with healthcare reform and economic recovery, including the Employee Free Choice Act, front and center.
November 12, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry but I don't remember in any of Obama's speeches the promise to give big auto a $50 billion dollar bailout so they can further renege on their pension obligations and keep making cars nobody wants to buy.
Granholm is cute, but WTF? And if he is giving them money, why doesn't he take shares in return?
November 12, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
So every decision Obama makes has to be traceable to speeches he made in 2008 while campaigning? If this is your standard, prepare to be disappointed.
November 12, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I confess I don't know much about organised labour in the U.S but no one seems to have mentioned a difficulty here. The outsourcing of jobs to countries without recognised unions. Surely, one has to address this issue before addressing the issue of labour power in the U.S or is that another topic?
I will add that I think it's great that American workers are beginning to organise and assert pressure on the state.
November 12, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you actually interview him, or is this from a P.R. email or promotional conference call? Just curious, because your terminology suggests you interviewed him.
Several big labor leaders were quoted basically saying the same already in this Nov. 9 New York Times piece.
I just checked the AFL-CIO blog, and it turns out they are hosting an international G-20 labor confab regarding coordinated international action this Friday, the eve of the global financial summit on the weekend.
November 13, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Single payer, single payer, single payer. HR-676. They should not settle for bullsh*t health insurance reform.
November 13, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen tigger. Amen. Let's drop the insurance thieves from the conversation. Starting by asking what exactly is it that insurance companies contribute to the health coverage equation??
Nothing was more dissonant to me in this election than the fact that every candidate's (save Kucinich I believe) health plan relied on insurance companies. Without anyone ever asking or discussing my above question.
November 13, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well here it comes.
I'm not anti union or pro union. My father was a member of the teamsters union and as a child I remember he said that being a member was a necessary evil. In other words you had to be a member just to have a job. I also remember the union goons breaking up a wildcat strike so that sort of thing sticks with you.
Much of The big three automakers problems stem from over reaching union contracts as well as malfeasance in the board room. The UAW has to change for they have become fat and lazy and have to change or become extinct. For the situation in the auto industry to improve not only the executives and boards have to go (without their golden parachutes) but also the union benefits have to scaled back to something more in line with the benefits the foreign automakers give their employees in the southern states. Change or loose your job!
November 13, 2008 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The American Labor Movement has been in near death mode since the great Reagan boom. I really hope today's leadership can bypass their egos and give Obama a little breathing room. No president-elect has taken office since FDR with such an overwhelming load.
That said, management has always had the option of accepting a card-check certification in leiu of an NLRB election. EFCA only gives that same option to workers. As usual, our media conveniently fails to make note of that extremely important fact.
As a veteran of many union organizing campaigns, some of which failed soley due to illegal, unethical and unpunished practices by management, I marveled at the effectiveness of the Obama community organizer campaign model and especially the speed at which it came together. Labor needs to renew and re-hone its skills in that arena.
November 14, 2008 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink