Search Results for ‘labor unions’
Ed Fallon made his primary challenge official against Leonard Boswell today. As part of our continuing analysis of the race, it’s worth previewing one of Fallon’s likely attacks against Boswell. Fallon is a campaign finance reform fanatic and Boswell has taken a lot of money from political action committees. In fact, in the first three quarters of 2007, Boswell has taken in $433,000 in contributions from PACs, making up 75% of total contributions recieved. Much of the money is the result of a simple matter of timing. Leonard Boswell is a senior member of the House Agriculture Committee and this was the year that the Farm Bill came up for a renewal.
But Boswell received significant contributions from organized labor and fellow Democrats in the House. Boswell received, by Iowa Progress’s count, contributions from 17 different labor unions along with the AFL-CIO totaling $85,000. Boswell’s contributors run the full gamut of the American Labor Movement. Boswell took in contributions from unions ranging from SEIU and UNITE HERE to the Ironworkers and the Machinists. Boswell’s congressional support is just as broad. Boswell received support from 17 of his Congressional colleagues, along with support from DCCC and $9000 in contributions from Barack Obama’s PAC, Hopefund. Boswell’s contributions include Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. And while it’s not surprising that Boswell took in contributions from fellow “Blue Dog” Democrats like Alan Boyd and Mike McIntyre, Boswell also received support from leading liberals like Barney Frank and Jan Schakowsky and from fellow Iowa Congressman, Bruce Braley.
In contrast to his contributions from PACs, Boswell’s individual contributors overwhelmingly came from Iowa and over 86% of his individual contributors were Iowans. But what’s most interesting is the contrasts within his contributions. Boswell took in money both from the National Pork Producers Council and from the League of Conservation Voters. Not only that, Boswell is perhaps the only Congressman who took in contributions from the NRA and the Human Rights Campaign.
Leonard Boswell has a broad range of contributors, this stems from the fact that he is a Democratic congressman in a swing district who has a lot of seniority on a major committee. But at the core, Boswell has clear support from fellow Democrats and from labor unions. Although, while Fallon may see the initial appeal of attacking Boswell on PAC contributions, it might not profit him. After all, it doesn’t suit his message to remind Democratic voters that in a Congressional District that George W. Bush won, it might be helpful in a general election to have a Democrat who can boast the support of both Nancy Pelosi and the NRA.
January 9th, 2008
A few days ago, The Register wrote an article documenting State Representative Dawn Pettengill’s dissatisfaction with the Democratic leadership in the State House. Here’s a snippet:
“I’m just trying to get through this term as a Democrat,” said Pettengill, the former mayor of her hometown of Mount Auburn who is now in her third year in the Iowa House. “People elected me as a Democrat, and I would not change during a term, that’s for sure.”
Her indecision leaves Democratic leaders questioning whether they should recruit a replacement candidate for the 2008 primary, and Republican leaders wondering if she might be on their team by the general election.
Will she defect? Well, she says she won’t during this term. In general, though, I’m not too worried about it. Pettengill has always seemed concerned with her ability to get elected in a district that she perceives as leaning more Republican than Democrat. She has developed a reputation (partly, but not wholly, deserved) for being emotionally volatile. Although she has condemned other legislators’ pet projects and voted against them, she is somewhat famous for her own pet projects: last year, she sponsored legislation to ban stores from selling sex toys to minors, and this year, she was the main proponent of the bill that recently passed preventing Iowa from having any business dealings with businesses supporting the genocide in Darfur. (I don’t mean to claim that either of these bills is bad policy, but neither is exactly in the front of most Iowans’ minds.)
The Register notes a few key places where Pettengill differs from the Democratic leadership in the House, but none of them are cut and dry reasons for a defection to the Republicans (or even to the Independent ticket):
But the strain of the last month has taken a serious toll as she struggled with her dislike of bills dear to many Democrats — raising the minimum wage (she voted yes after some reluctance), upping the cigarette tax (she voted no), campaign finance reform (she may vote no), and allowing public employee unions to charge nonunion members a “fair share” fee (she firmly intends to vote no).
On raising the minimum wage, she did end up voting yes, and the political realities in her district meant that “some reluctance” on the vote was smart. On voting against the cigarette tax, she justifies her decision for liberal (dare I say Democratic) reasons:
During a caucus meeting on the cigarette tax two weeks ago, Pettengill wept as she explained that when she was 19 years old, she found herself living on her own with a baby, balancing college classes and a job. She couldn’t afford cigarettes, but they were such a critical source of comfort that she sacrificed food to buy them.
She objects to a cigarette tax because it is increcibly regressive — it takes money disproportionately from the poor, and, because it is a flat fee, it takes a greater percentage of the disposable income of a poor person than it does a rich person. Yes, it internalizes an externality, yadda yadda yadda; but there is a principled, liberal argument to be made against it. Frankly, I was surprised more members didn’t express that opinion. Maybe only a small minority of the party holds this view, but it isn’t because they are the more conservative members of the party.
On campaign finance reform, it really isn’t clear that all of the Democratic leadership are fully supporting the VOICE bill. Good liberals generally like it (despite the short-term strategic disadvantages it may present to parties currently in the majority of the legislature), but this isn’t exactly an issue that everyone is closely aligned over.
And finally, on FairShare, it disappoints many labor activists that Pettengill does not support it, but again, there is a fair amount of diversity among Democrats on this subject. Some have more union shops in their districts than others, and some have different opinions of labor unions than others. Our Democratic State Senator, Tom Reilly, voted against FairShare, and he isn’t leaving the party anytime soon. Again, it’s an issue where some people within the labor movement are doubting policies like this, so it isn’t’ only conservatives who oppose it.
So is it really just the House leadership’s fault that Pettengill is disgruntled, as others have claimed? No. The House leadership is doing its job. Their job is to push a Democratic agenda in the legislature, and they have to keep their members in line whenever they can. They’re getting results, and, unless Pettengill does end up defecting, no one will even remember this story in six months.
March 31st, 2007
The Quad City Times is reporting that the Fair Share proposal for non-union employees to pay their fair share of the benefits they receive due to working in union shops might be dead for the legislative session. The Republican Party has been solid in their opposition to this measure. It’s part of their anti-labor and anti-working families agenda. One hopes that enough votes can be mustered up in the next few days to pass Fair Share and to help puncture the myth that weak labor unions are somehow correlated with a strong business environment. After all, aren’t “right to work” states like Mississippi and Wyoming centers of economic growth? If Iowa wants to attract new businesses, emulating Mississippi is not the wisest way to do so.
And frankly, the opposition to Fair Share has nothing to do with attracting businesses to the state. As a University of Iowa economist pointed out recently, “why would a unionized company care how many of its workers paid how much to the union?” The opposition to fair share isn’t about making sure that people can avoid paying for benefits they receive or about attracting business to Iowa, it’s about Republicans who want to hurt organized labor and working families in the state of Iowa. It’s a shame that even with a Democratic legislature, the Republicans may still be able to impede such an important piece of legislation.
February 28th, 2007
Throughout most of the world, Labor Day is celebrated on May 1st to commemorate the aftermath of the so-called “Haymarket Riots” when a mass strike for an eight hour working day in Chicago was crushed by the police. The police used a bomb that was thrown at a line of policemen that killed one and fatally wounded six more (thrown either by an agent provocateur or by a lone crazed anarchist) as an excuse to fire into a crowd of peaceable demonstrators. The deaths of the policemen served as a pretext to round up the city’s labor leaders who were put on trial in front of a packed jury as accessories to murder, despite the fact there was no evidence of any connecting them to the deaths of the policemen. Seven were sentenced to death, and although the sentences of two of them were commuted to life in prison, four innocent men were murdered by the State of Illinois (and a fifth committed suicide on the eve of his execution).
How do Mary Lundby and the other State Senate Republicans want to commemorate this hallowed day for the Labor Movement? They’ve introduced a bill to declare May 1 as Iowa’s Right To Work Day to remember the passage of Iowa’s anti-labor “Right To Work” Act. The resolution also praises the Taft-Hartley act, which enabled states to pass “right to work” legislation, and is the most anti-Labor legislation in American history. Taft-Hartley was described by Harry Truman as “a clear threat to the successful working of our democratic society.” As contemptuous as this resolution is, it’s just a resolution and merely a symbolic statement. However, it’s part of an ongoing effort by the Republican Party to undermine the Labor Movement and the rights of working people that goes back beyond Taft-Hartley. But Iowa Republicans aren’t limiting themselves to symbolic gestures.
The Republicans in the State House are also opposing the Fair Share Law in Iowa. This merely mandates that “all workers who receive union-negotiated benefits contribute to the cost of providing those benefits.” However, the Republicans claim that this will destroy business in Iowa. This is baseless assertion that was easily refuted by Peter Fisher, a University of Iowa economist, who pointed out, “Why would a unionized company care how many of its workers paid how much to the union? I can only conclude that firms who assert that they will not come to Iowa because of fair share are looking for a low-wage location and want weak labor unions to help ensure that it will remain a low-wage location.” It’s a shame that Republicans are continuing their efforts to undermine workers’ rights and thumbing their noses at those who actually work to help Iowa’s working families.
February 17th, 2007
Wal-Mart occupies a special place in the demonology of the American Left–and with good reason. Its business practices lead to the exploitation of workers both at home and overseas and it has paved its path to success on the destruction of countless American small businesses, most of which were located in small towns like Grinnell. These sins have been extensively catagoried by organizations like Wake Up WalMart.
However, Wal-Mart seems to be taking steps to remediate these issues. Most notably, the front page of the New York Times today has an article that describes how Wal-Mart is using its power as the largest store in the nation to encourage consumers to buy more energy-efficient light bulbs. Compared to a traditional incandescent light bulb, a compact flourescent light bulb “uses 75 percent less electricity, lasts 10 times longer, produces 450 pounds fewer greenhouse gases from power plants and saves consumers $30 over the life of each bulb. But it is eight times as expensive as a traditional bulb, gives off a harsher light and has a peculiar appearance.” This is part of an ongoing effort by Wal-Mart to become a better corporate citizen and address a lot of the criticism it’s received. In fact, its new chief lobbyist is a former official in the Clinton Adminstration.
So do these efforts mean Wal-Mart has changed its stripes? I don’t know but it does seem to have some interesting political ramifications. It puts John Edwards, who has taken an active part in the anti-Wal-Mart campaign as part of his attempt to reposition himself as the progressive candidate in 2008, in an interesting position. He’s now criticizing an environmental do-gooder. While Hillary Clinton, who was a member of Wal-Mart’s board until her husband ran for President, doesn’t have to run so far from her past involvement with the largest company in Arkansas. While no Democrat will embrace Wal-Mart (after all, with enemies like SEIU and the UFCW, you’re not going to have a lot of Democrats who want to be your friends), how they address the issue will be important. It’s the difference between a nuanced position that won’t alienate corporate contributors and an all-out attack that will be a bid for support from organized labor.
The question is whether by word or by deed, Wal-Mart will be successful at changing its stripes so that an attack on its corporate practices is merely doing the bidding of labor unions rather than defending working Americans. The success of Wal-Mart’s efforts may not just determine its corporate image but the image of Presidential candidates as well.
January 2nd, 2007
Fallon is in Marshalltown today, campaigning there for the last time before the election. He commented on his opponents’ endorsements saying,
My campaign has never been about media endorsements,” he said. “Even though I don’t have many endorsements from the labor unions, but many rank-and-file members supporting me.
It’s sort of funny that that’s the first quote in the Times-Republican article, since Fallon received his first batch of legislative endorsements yesterday.
Reflecting on the campaign at this point, Fallon said “I can’t say I’m going to win, but I’m confident it will be competitive.” On his supporters, he added, “I’m giving them a reason to vote,” he said. “I feel a lot of people have lost hope in the political process. I’m giving them a reason to hope.”
If the Fallon campaign has toyed with the idea of endorsing Blouin, I would imagine that sort of quote indicates where Fallon stands. (Just speculation.)
On an unrelated note, George Pataki visited Iowa yesterday and agreed to hold a fundraiser for Jeff Lamberti in New York next month. Here’s where the Boswell-Lamberti thermometer stands as of May 17. (Boxer money yet to come.)
June 1st, 2006
Despite his claim to be focused on his duties as governor, the Register reports that Vilsack travelled to DC this week to court a union conference. Jane Norman writes that Vilsack’s overtures are important to any future presidential bid:
[Vilsack’s] relations with some Iowa trade unions have at times been strained. Vilsack has been the target of criticism by labor groups because of pro-business legislation he has signed in order to compromise with Statehouse Republicans.
During his I’m-not-running-for-anything-I’m-just-here-to-chat speech he also uttered the words Democratic hopefuls are starting to rally around:
The strongest applause came when he called for less reliance on foreign oil and vowed that “we should never, ever send any young man or woman anywhere in the world to defend our oil supply.”
You just keep telling yourself we believe you haven’t thought about it, Tom.
April 4th, 2006
