Twelve Squandered Years in Power
When the Republican party came to power in 1995, John McHugh had been in congress only two years as a minority member. During that time in the 103rd congress, the Democratic majority brought to the floor a bill to ban permanent hiring of replacement workers (pejoratively known to organized labor as “scabs”) who are hired during a strike. Also at that time the Senate 
was composed of 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans, Kay Hutchison having just won special election in Texas. The political reality was that any worker replacement ban was going nowhere in the Senate because of Republican opposition and threat of filibuster. Along with Republicans Rick Lazio and Rick Santorum who were positioning themselves for future Senate runs, Mr. McHugh voted along with the Democrats for passage. While these three split ideologically from their party, the Republican legislative goals were never in danger. Predictably, the bill never saw the light of day in the Senate.
The next twelve years, with his party in power, both in Congress and in the Presidency, he had an extraordinary opportunity to show his friendship to organized labor. After all, organized labor is one of his chief constituencies, giving him $583,950 in campaign contributions.
So how much did he believe in banning replacement workers. Certainly not enough to have sponsored the bill himself in each of the six congresses where his party was in the majority. Certainly not enough to even co-sponsor bills submitted by Democrats. He didn’t cosponsor the bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to prevent discrimination based on participation in labor disputes which also banned replacement workers introduced by Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts in 2001 which, summarized by the congressional research service (an official agency of congress to assist representative):
Amends the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to prohibit employer discrimination, during and at the conclusion of labor disputes, against employees who participate in such disputes. Prohibits employers from offering: (1) permanent replacement status to individuals who replace strikers or otherwise work or express a willingness to work during such disputes; or (2) certain employment preferences to such individuals over striking workers who have returned or have made unconditional offers to return to work.
Not unexpectedly, it died in committee. Perhaps if there was a Republican to co-sponsor it, it would have been given a fair shake.
If he were a real friend of labor and truly believed in the replacement worker bill, he would have introduced his own, over and over again in each succeeding Congress when his party was in the majority. In fact, it required no rewriting. Just use the same one. He’s certainly been known plagiarize someone else’s bill, in the same congress, and pass it off as his own. That’s considered bad form, even in Republican circles, but that’s another post. Submitting bills from previous Congress’s isn’t look upon with such distain though.
Labor touts his votes against NAFTA and CAFTA. NAFTA was easy for him: voting against a Democratic president (Clinton). CAFTA required arm twisting up until the night of the vote. I have it on very good authority from union insiders that they were on the phone to him all that day and the final message to him was: vote against CAFTA or loose union support. So he counted the votes to make sure it would pass and voted against it at the last minute.
He is certainly no enthusiastic friend to labor. If he were, he could have sponsored bills to help them. He could have signed the discharge petition to get a pure minimum wage bill out of the rules committee in the 109th congress. Instead he voted for the bill that was contaminated with the estate tax rescissions – knowing full well that, it too, would never get through the Senate. So while he voted for a union replacement worker bill when he first got to congress (when the Dems controlled it), he did so knowing full well it would never get the 60 votes in the Senate to prevent a Republican filibuster. Likewise, if he were an enthusiastic friend of labor he could have introduced a bill for unionization votes to be done by card check, like the one he voted for this year (HR 800) – also knowing full well it will never get out of the Senate.
He could have voted for CAFE standards to assure that GM would make cars that Americans and the rest of the world wanted to buy. But he continually voted against them, and GM is now headed for a nose dive along with 500 plus Massena jobs.
In fact, organized labor recognizes this lukewarm support and compared to Senators Schumer and Clinton his support is dismal. The following are the Unions’ own ratings of Mssrs. McHugh, Schumer and Ms. Clinton. The differences are striking. The very best was the IEBW rating of 55% in 2004. On average, his support is no more than 40%. For a Republican that’s pretty good and evidently worth a half a million.
No it was a squandered 12 years in power. All passive support, nothing active. Most labor bills never saw the light of day in those 12 years.
So whose friend is he anyway. George Bush’s or organized labor’s?
Jeremy Barlow on 04 Jun 2007 at 2:06 pm #
It is hard to see why North Country unions continue to support Mr. McHugh. He doesn’t support anything that unions stand for, never has, never will. My father has said it for as long as I can remember, and whenever I study anything about history, it has always been proven right, Repubican politicians always stand on the side of big business, never on the side of the working man. I mean, Taft-Hartley, the act that gutted the NLRA was the only thing passed by what Truman called the “Do-Nothing” Congress.
The problem of course is that most Republicans are working men, who don’t realize who is actually on their side.
Theophilus on 05 Jun 2007 at 10:28 pm #
The most frustrating aspect of politics here in the North Country is the generational party affiliation. “My granddad was a Republican, my dad was a Republican and I’m a Republican,” – regardless of the issues.
I think it stems from two roots.
Firstly, we are a government subsidized economy, with nearly half of the jobs being either directly or indirectly supported by or spun off by the government. A look at Jefferson County’s economic data shows that out of 42,400 jobs, 11,600 or 28% were government jobs. Add to that healthcare and the jobs spun off and dependent upon the government jobs, we are close to 50%. While campaigning, I found out that party affiliation is important in getting and maintaining jobs up here. More than a few times, people would tell me how much they agreed with me and that I had their vote, but they would not put out yards signs to avoid antagonizing their employer. There is a real culture of fear and intimidation up here magnified by the number of people depended upon government jobs.
Secondly, there is the antagonism toward New York City. Mr. McHugh was fond of reminding people that I was born in the Bronx, capitalizing on that distrust. The more Upstate you go, the more the ambivalence turns to antagonism. There is no doubt that New York City consumes a lot of State resources, but likewise, it is a center of economic activity.
I attend a very conservative church, so when I decided to run as a Democrat, naturally there were some raised eyebrows. As the campaign wore on, more and more people came to me realizing that when they looked at the issues (Iraq, Healthcare, Energy and even Christian ethics) the more the Republican agenda was at odds with their own beliefs.
I am convinced that the key to winning the congressional seat is educating and making the voters aware of the issues and who stands where.