McHugh Watch

An endorsement from the UAW local 465, based at the Massena GM Powertrain plant, appeared in the Watertown Times today. The UAW prepared and submitted to the US Department of Labor petitions for Trade Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance. According to the endorsement letter, within hours of filing the petitions, our congressman wrote a letter of support to the Department of Labor.

These are programs that assist individuals who become unemployed as a result of increased imports from, or shifts in production to, foreign countries. This provision of assistance was made possible by HR 3009, the Trade Act of 2002. It passed the House on a voice vote on November 16, 2001, so we don’t know how our congressman voted on it. We do know however, that on July 27, 2002, he voted against final passage of the bill after it returned from conference committee. So, if he had his way back in 2002, there would have been no program for the UAW to apply for assistance for its members and certainly no reason for him to write a letter of support.

He gets an endorsement for writing a letter of support for petitions that were prepared, researched and submitted by the UAW for a bill that he did not support. The implication of the endorsement is that because of the letter of support, the UAW members have been afforded assistance. The fact is, the petitions were evaluated and approved based on their merits by the Department of Labor, plain and simple. Congratulations to those who did the hard work of preparing the petitions. Their approval had nothing to do with our congressman’s letter and certainly, he can’t be thanked for approving the program in the first place.

As a further reason for endorsing Mr. McHugh, the UAW Local President cites Mr. McHugh’s submission of the Forewarn Act of 2007, HR 3662, for which he has obtained one cosponsor and has gone no where, being referred to and will die at the end of this congress, in committee. Other than give the workers and government officials 90 days warning before a plant closing, it does nothing to keep the plant open.

The Massena GM Powertrain plant is going to close in 2009 with the direct loss of about 500 jobs at the plant. Additionally, another 300 jobs are in jeopardy that are dependent upon the lost Powertrain jobs. The Massena plant is closing for the same reason GM, Ford and Chrysler are in such financial trouble now: they are not making cars that Americans want to buy.

The Japanese looked at the long term, knowing full well that inexpensive gas would not last forever and designed and built hybrid cars that get 50 miles per gallon. Meanwhile, the American auto industry rewarded its executives with obscene salaries and bonuses that were based on the short term semiannual horizon success of the SUV. There were no incentives to look to the future. So while the Massena plant closes and “Joe autoworker” loses his job, the GM executives pocketed their cash and got away with it.

The sad story is that government, including our congressman, could have prevented the Massena closing and, along the way, the American Auto Industry meltdown. Since the Big Three automakers’ executives had no incentive to look to the long term, Washington could have made that happen by passing increased fuel efficiency standards – increasing CAFE standards. Just as we did in 1976, demand that the auto industry make fuel efficient cars. However, our congressman, along with the Big Three management and, if the truth be known, the UAW, consistently opposed increasing CAFE standards.

Now the Big Three want a bailout to build fuel efficient cars. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that the executives will still get their obscene compensation and we taxpayers will underwrite them, just as we are going to underwrite the failed bank executives’ continued exorbitant compensation.

So Mr. McHugh gets the UAW nod for opposing the very bill that provides what little relief the Massena auto workers will get, for opposing the one policy initiative that could have saved their jobs along with the rest of the auto industry and for sponsoring a bill, that does nothing, only has one other co-sponsor, will go no where and will die at the end of this session.

– but, let’s give credit where credit is due: he did write a letter.

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): Continue Reading »

GM profits are down by 90% this quarter. A lot of that is due to the losses by their financial arm GMAC. More ominous however are their continuing loses from the North American car manufacturing operations. The reason: GM is not making cars that Americans want to buy. Is it any wonder that the Massena plant is closing. Those that invoke the “efficiency” of the market place as an almost religious mantra are now seeing that efficiency in its most brutal manifestations. Yes, the “invisible hand” of an unrestrained and unguided market is forcing the closure of the GM Powertrain division in Massena.

GM, like so many American companies, has put short term gains above long term stability. They have refused to invest in the future and come up with fuel efficient cars. In fact, after successfully conducting a leasing trial in southern California, GM crushed and buried the EV1, the electric battery car. Instead, they have scared the wits out of our local union leaders who, joined by our congressman, have resisted government benchmarks for fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards. The last time fuel efficiency was demanded by the congress was in 1976 after the Arab Oil embargos. Since then, Detroit and Big Oil has fought them tooth and nail. That was fine when gas was relatively cheap. It was also fine when Congress, could put its head in the sand about global warming. That was before the ice caps so dramatically started to break off. Continue Reading »

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). Continue Reading »

It is a contention of this author that in order to plumb the actual proclivities of our congressman, it is necessary to look beyond the main votes and look at what happens in the arcane parliamentary procedure that precedes the main vote. Consistency of thought and action is a very powerful measure of the true intents of an individual.

Mr. McHugh has strong union backing even though in the past he as only voted 40% of the time with the interests of organized labor. This past Friday he voted for HR 800, the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 that will authorize the creation of a union by merely gaining a majority of employees to sign “cards” – essentially a petition – to form a union. This will all be done out in the open without the mandate for a secret ballot.

It is therefore notable that before Mr. McHugh voted for the bill, he voted against it and by doing so tried to hand control of the debate over to those that vehemently oppose the bill. As noted before in these essays, voting against Ordering the Previous Question when voting on a Rule does just that. Mr. McHugh, as he so often does – being true to form – voted against Ordering the Previous Question (the vote to vote) and thus, buried in the arcane parliamentary procedure of the House, did all he could to obstruct the bill. Continue Reading »

We need to congratulate our congressman on voting for HR 2: The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 along with 317 other Representatives from both parties. It raises the minimum wage throughout the US to $7.25 in two years, and on the way there to $5.85 in 60 days after enactment and $6.55 in a year. This bill can only be good for New York, since our state minimum wage is $7.15. It will certainly make New York more competitive with other states whose minimum wage remains at the federal minimum of $5.15.

The minimum wage has not been raised since 1997. It was mandated by HR 3448 that was passed by both Houses (enrolled) on 8/2/1996, presented to the President on 8/8/1996 and signed by President Clinton on 8/20/1996.

The real question is why did he not act earlier? He had every opportunity to back the very same bill in the 109th Congress, HR 2429 and decided not to. Continue Reading »