Organized Labor’s Adoration of a False Idol
Yesterday, Mr. McHugh attended the Northeast Labor Council Legislative Breakfast to bask in their adoration of his vote on HR 800 the Employee Free Choice Act. As noted previously, this affirmative vote came only after trying to frustrate its passage by voting against Ordering the Previous Question.
It is also instructive to note the same duplicitous strategy in 1993 when he voted during his first term in the 103rd congress for HR 5 the CESAR CHAVEZ WORKPLACE FAIRNESS ACT which banned the retention of replacement workers hired during a strike. He was one of 195 cosponsors to a bill written by William Clay of Missouri. It would have amended the National Labor Relations Act 29 USC 158(a).
In the run up to considering the actual bill, he voted against the rule that provided for its consideration. This is a key parliamentary maneuver that attempts to take control of the debate away from those sponsoring the bill and substituting their own measure. From Deschler’s Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives:
Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.
In fact the Republican opposition had a bill at the ready (sponsored by Tom Ridge) and tried to offer it as a substitute. It would have gutted the intents of HR 5. Had the Republicans defeated the rule, they would have controlled the debate such that only their substitute amendment could be considered.
While the Rule’s debate is suppose to be on the procedure to consider the bill, it always turns out to be on the bill the itself. Here you can get a flavor the “debate” on the Rule (H Res 195) from the Congressional Record. Joe MOAKLEY (D Mass) and David DREIER (R Calif) are managing the debate and yielding the floor to other members. It is clear that this debate is about the Worker Replacement Bill and not the Rule resolution. The key is this: A vote against the Rule is a vote against the bill itself. Yes – predictably he voted against it. In essence, flying under the radar of arcane parliamentary procedure he tried to defeat a bill that he had even co-sponsored. He learned this trick very early in his congressional career: in his first term.
While both HR 5: Cesar Chavez Workplace Fairness Act 1993 and HR 800: Employee Free Choice Act 2007 are centerpieces of organized labor’s agenda, it should be noted that HR 5 died in the Senate as will HR 800. It’s a risk free vote for a Republican congressman – these bills never did nor will they become law even George Bush not withstanding. That’s how the pros do it, and he IS a matchless professional politician.
The question is, when will organized labor see through this charade?
Yellerdog on 19 Mar 2007 at 7:03 pm #
Probably correct and one wonders why they do not catch on.
However, why did he do this if as it seemed, there was never any doubt that the bill would pass in the house. Why take the chance that the unions would catch on, especially since senate is a likey, Bush a guaranteed back stop. (admittedly in the latter case he would have to vote on the override)
Yellerdog on 19 Mar 2007 at 8:22 pm #
after thinking more about this and reading this (a magazine to which i heartily commend subscription), i come to the conclusion that the unions may not be all that foolish or misguided
they have learned that much of the democratic leadership has uncertain interst in working people either; the coporatist views of the wall street wing of the democratic party reign and it will be a long and uncertain struggle within to eliminate them
it will take some real convincing to get the unions to see that any particular altenative to McWho is really on their side
Yellerdog on 20 Mar 2007 at 11:36 am #
Of course this is starting to be a little silly with only one person commenting
but, though you doubtless thought Democrats were the party of working poeple
via Ezra Klein
the unions know whats going on and will only come over when Democratic candidates are more full throated in their support of working people
Theophilus on 20 Mar 2007 at 7:45 pm #
In reply to your first comment, being able to play both sides is very important in his political life. Being successful means keeping both his Republican support and raiding the Democratic base. By putting up token resistance to the bill, he can claim opposition to his Republican base all the while getting the money from Labor inside the beltway. Even Republicans in the North Country are poor and cannot meaningfully contribute to his campaign coffers. He gets 98% of his money from outside the district. If he didn’t need the Democratic faction, instead of being Bush’s lap dog 80% of the time it would be 100%.
Publius on 21 Mar 2007 at 1:52 am #
What’s wrong with encouraging teachers by rewarding them with a merit bonus for superior performance and dedication to their students? Too many union bosses keep themselves in power with lucrative perks by appealing to members who lack ambition to improve themselves and better serve their students. Union leaders should fight to improve base salaries and working conditions as well as for incentives that encourage creativity and superior performance.
Yellerdog on 21 Mar 2007 at 6:17 am #
in his rejoinder, theophilus is correct about the facts but is missing my point
the question remains why do union workers fall for this (let’s leave aside the question of their leaders)
what i urge is an analysis that gets beyond the implication that working people are stupid and do not see what’s going on
such an approach can never succeed in getting rid of malefactors like McWho (anti-worker to his core)
which brings me to the comment of publius
in an ideal world merit pay might be a good idea
such an ideal world it is ever the basis for the mantra of the corporatists, be they democrat or republican
they always say that the boses need freedom to run things efficiently (in the interests of everyone no doubt)
that good workers have nothing to fear
but it is a load of self serving twaddle
the bosses always have immense power no worker on their own can resist and they will and do use it to serve themselves
only strong unions can protect workers
democrats must stand strongly with them and oppose anything that weakens them in the first instance and push policies that strengthen them in the second instance
or we will get what we deserve, which is derision as latte drinking yuppies (not so young any more) who know nothing and could care-less about what it means to be over-worked, under-rewarded and generally abused by bosses
which i submit needs to be at the core of analysis i referred to above
we will get nowhere if we are not with the people & the workers all the way
against wealth & privilege all the way
this part of the country was ruled by the Democracy in an earlier age when those lines were more clearly drawn
Theophilus on 22 Mar 2007 at 5:10 pm #
In response to yellerdog’s last post, it is not that working people and union rank and file are so stupid as to not see what’s going on but rather it’s the almost instinctive organizational (some would be derogatory and call it “herd”) mentality that has to be overcome. Like so many organizations, the rank and file put their trust in their leaders who they have chosen and have an inherent propensity to follow them.
Having said that, from personal experience, there are many, who in the privacy of the voting booth, will break with the union leadership. Non the less, the majority do not and in solidarity will vote with the recommendations of the leadership.
The problem is with the leadership and their political outlook. Not only are there deep personal ties to Mr. McHugh, but there is always the very real possibility of retaliation if they back a challenger and he/she loses. The Democratic take over of Congress this year not withstanding, the probability of a challenger defeating an incumbent is 20:1.
Unions also understand the power of money. The incumbent has much more access to money than does a challenger. Mr. McHugh spent nearly $750K this year on his campaign compared to myself who raised only $140K, of which a significant amount was a personal contribution. Money begets money and most organizations, including labor, will follow the money.