How Blue Dogs And Other Reactionary Fake Democrats Damage The Brand-- Union Busting

Many very conservative, even reactionary Democrats-- Georgia's despicable John Barrow and Illinois's equally abhorrent Melissa Bean are two good examples-- get a great deal of support and money from unions, while at the same time taking contributions from right-wing anti-labor PACs. The simplistic approach by some labor political strategists has Blue Dogs laughing up their sleeves at the millions and millions of dollars they have come to expect from unions-- offering very little, if anything, in return. All too often labor has been willing to play the Inside-the-Beltway game, particularly the Democratic Establishment in-the-pocket unions like AFSCME.

Supposedly, however, organized labor is finally drawing the line with the Employee Free Choice Act. Anti-working family Democrats like Dan Boren will not only not be supported, they will find themselves defending their unconscionable records in primaries. Many Blue Dogs and other right-wing Democrats have their bloomers all in a bunch because they feel stuck between a rock and a hard place, not wanting to antagonize their traditional Democratic supporters (working families) and not wanting to get on the bad side of anti-working family fanatics from the Chamber of Commerce and the GOP anti-union front groups who are loaded with money for vicious propaganda campaigns.

In yesterday's Hill you could hear a sigh of relief from the Blue Dogs at the prospect that the Senate could save them from having to make a tough choice. This year the Senate will work on the legislation first. Last year when the House passed it, 241-185, there were 233 co-sponsors, including some mainstream conservative Republicans like Frank Lobiondo (NJ), Peter King (NY), Steve LaTourette (OH), Chris Smith (NJ), and John McHugh (NY). Among those who refused to co-sponsor it were now-defeated fake Dems Don Cazayoux (LA) and Tim Mahoney (FL), as well as Blue Dog reactionaries Dan Boren (OK), Gene Taylor (MS), Travis Childers (MS), Mike McIntyre (NC). When the Republicans made their ritualistic attempt to bury it with a motion to recommit-- a vote that labor unions don't take into account-- the anti-working family fake Democrats who were too scared to vote no on the final ballot (only Oklahoma's Dan Boren and Mississippi's Gene Taylor did that) joined with Republicans to spit in the eyes of America's working men and women. The Democrats who voted against Employee Free Choice on that ballot were:

John Barrow (GA)
Dan Boren (OK)
Nancy Boyda (KS) -- since defeated for re-election
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Brad Ellsworth (IN)
Baron Hill (IN)
Nick Lampson (TX) -- since defeated for re-election
Tim Mahoney (FL) -- since defeated for re-election
Jim Marshall (GA)
Harry Mitchell (AZ)
Collin Peterson (MN)
Heath Shuler (NC)
Gene Taylor (MS)

Among the right-wing Democrats the DCCC saddled us with this year are a number who are likely to continue voting with the GOP, reactionaries like Bobby Bright (AL), Parker Griffith (AL) and, of course, Walt Minnick (ID).

The bill has more than enough votes to pass the House, but faces a difficult road in the Senate, where Democrats fall just short of a filibuster-proof majority.

Blue Dog Democrats in the House have shown tepid support so far for the legislation, which is the subject of an all-out lobbying war between business and labor. Many have faced tough questions about the legislation from constituents, who have been blitzed with a business advertising campaign.

"I do think the legislation has got to start in the Senate because it has already passed in the House," said Rep. Parker Griffith (D-Ala.). "There is no point in bringing up the legislation if they don't have the votes in the Senate."

"It's my understanding [that] the Senate is going to act first on it. They may change it," said Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.). "When they act, we can talk about it. What I think about the current bill may be irrelevant."

..."The Blue Dogs don't want to be put to a vote on this if it changes or dies in the Senate," said a business lobbyist. "The current dynamics have changed. Their vote would be for real now."

Business groups would see a Senate-first strategy as an early victory for their lobbying campaign.

A union official said the debate over strategy revolves around whether an initial House vote would help raise Senate support.

"There isn't any doubt in anyone's mind that we have a substantial majority in the House and it will pass when the Speaker brings it up," said a union official. "Now the question is, will that lead to 60 votes in the Senate or not? That is what is being discussed right now."

Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said members are considering taking up EFCA first in the Senate because that is where the challenge for the bill lies.

"We can pass the bill," Miller said of the House. He said the strategy was not related to concerns from Blue Dogs or other members.

Miller, a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said the move is not a sign of discord behind the scenes. "We're not having defections. There's no problem here," he said.

He also said the decision had not been finalized but was under serious consideration.

"I feel the decision has already been pretty well made. We have had discussions about it," said Miller, although he added that House and Senate leaders have yet to sign off on the strategic move.

A Senate leadership aide said no decision has been made, and a House leadership aide said Obama administration officials are also participating in the talks on when and where to introduce the bill.

The bill is not moving forward as quickly this year as it did in the last Congress.

The banksters, corrupt Chamber of Commerce reactionaries and their Republican handmaidens try to paint the Employee Free Choice Act as something bad for working people; this is patently absurd, and today 39 prominent economists, including 2 Nobel Prize winners, explained why in the Washington Post. Writing about the economic collapse Bush Republican policies have inflicted on our country, they point out that it goes beyond just malfeasance in the banking sector. Over and above the childish analysis on cable TV, "the financial sector is not the only segment of the U.S. economy running into serious trouble. The institutions that govern the labor market have also failed, producing the unusual and unhealthy situation in which hourly compensation for American workers has stagnated even as their productivity soared.

Indeed, from 2000 to 2007, the income of the median working-age household fell by $2,000-- an unprecedented decline. In that time, virtually all of the nation's economic growth went to a small number of wealthy Americans. An important reason for the shift from broadly-shared prosperity to growing inequality is the erosion of workers' ability to form unions and bargain collectively.

A natural response of workers unable to improve their economic situation is to form unions to negotiate a fair share of the economy, and that desire is borne out by recent surveys. Millions of American workers-- more than half of non-managers-- have said they want a union at their work place. Yet only 7.5% of private sector workers are now represented by a union. And in all of 2007, fewer than 60,000 workers won union status through government-sanctioned elections. What explains this disconnect?

The problem is that the election process overseen by the National Labor Relations Board has become drawn out and acrimonious, with management campaigning fiercely to deter unionization, sometimes to the extent of violating labor laws. Union sympathizers are routinely threatened or even fired, and they have little effective recourse under the law. Even when workers overcome this pressure and vote for a union, they are unable to obtain contracts one-third of the time due to management resistance.

To remedy this situation, the Congress is considering the Employee Free Choice Act. This act would accomplish three things: It would give workers the choice of using majority sign-up-- a simple, established procedure in which workers sign cards to indicate their support for a union-- or staging an NLRB election; it triples damages for employers who fire union supporters or break other labor laws; and it creates a process to ensure that newly unionized employees have a fair shot at obtaining a first contract by calling for arbitration after 120 days of unsuccessful bargaining.

The Employee Free Choice Act will better reflect worker desires than the current "war over representation.” The act will also lower the level of acrimony and distrust that often accompanies union elections in our current system.

A rising tide lifts all boats only when labor and management bargain on relatively equal terms. In recent decades, most bargaining power has resided with management. The current recession will further weaken the ability of workers to bargain individually. More than ever, workers will need to act together.

Pretty incredible that anyone calling themself a Democrat-- or a friend of working families-- could oppose this. But the right has invested millions and millions of dollars, some of it taxpayer bailout money stolen by corrupt banksters, into distorting the debate and making it look like a fight for secret ballots. They have employed some of the most venal and sleaziest lobbyists in the country to spread a media campaign of lies and distortions, happily echoed by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and the rest of the GOP propaganda brigade. Any Democrat unwilling or unable to push back on something so basic might as well cede his seat back to the Republicans, whether that's Boren, Griffith, Bright, Minnick, Taylor or any other reactionary disguised as a member of the Democratic caucus.

We'll be eager to watch Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who's been placed in charge of the DCCC's program of re-electing vulnerable Democrats-- and what Democrat is more vulnerable than the ones who stab their base in the back the way Lampson and Cazayoux did? Maybe she should have a talk with these sketchy Dems before the vote. If she doesn't, she'll be held responsible for funds she doles out to these losers as we approach the 2010 midterms.

Among the Front Line Democrats, those the DCCC judges to be vulnerable, are several reactionaries who vote frequently with the Republicans and are untrustworthy on issues impacting working families. Many Democrats and independents in their districts-- who replaced rightist Republicans with them-- are dissatisfied with their perfidy since coming to office and could easily wind up facing the same fate as Cazayoux and Lampson did, and for the same reason. Among the worst on Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Front Line list are:

Bobby Bright (AL)
Chris Carney (PA)
Travis Childers (MS)
Parker Griffith (AL)
Baron Hill (IN)
Walt Minnick (ID)
Harry Mitchell (AZ)

This morning when the House met to consider the budget, the first parliamentary hurdle was just to agree to start the debate. It passed 234-177 with all but one Republican voting no, back to their old obstructionist tricks. They were joined by 8 Democrats, 7 of them reactionaries who feel more comfortable voting with the GOP than working to solve the problems facing working families. The question isn't why don't they just join the Republican Party? The question is, why is Debbie Wasserman Schultz going to put DCCC money into re-electing them? Think about that the next time the DCCC asks you for money. The 7 culprits were Allen Boyd (Blue Dog-FL), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ), Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC), Walt Minnick (ID), Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC) and Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS).