You would think that Sen. Feinstein would be a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act, wouldn't you?
Representing this state, coming from her city, in light of the broken union election system we face and the heartbreak it inflicts on American workers...she should.
RNs are especially invested in the Employee Free Choice Act because unionized nurses save lives, and because hospital owners are some of the most vicious, unethical, and criminal union-busters out there.
So tomorrow, 1200 RNs will make a house call to Sen. Feinstein's house, demanding that she cosponsor this life-saving, long-overdue legislation. They'll leave a rose with a personalized note explaining their story of how being a unionized RN has changed their life...or saved someone else's.
If Dianne Feinstein really was backing away from supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, I'd be the first to blast her. But she never supported it in the 111th Congress to begin with. She remains the only Democratic member of the California delegation, in the House or Senate, not to co-sponsor the bill. And she signaled her support for a compromise bill, which has a kind of "early voting" card check where workers mail in their cards to the NLRB, and if 50% return they get a union, three weeks ago. So some reporter got fooled today by a Chamber of Commerce press release suggesting that DiFi "pulled her support" of the Employee Free Choice Act in a meeting with CoC folks from the Santa Clarita Valley.
Yeah, we get it. You want to break news. But at bare minimum, one Jon Dell should have:
Looked up the meaning of the word "cloture," which apparently he does not know, since Feinstein's vote for the bill isn't needed for its passage
Asked Feinstein for comment instead of taking the word of an organization spending millions of dollars to defeat the bill, and
[Diane Feinstein's] proposal would replace the card-check provision, which would allow workers to unionize if a majority signed authorization cards and strip a company's ability to demand a secret ballot election. "It's a secret ballot that would be mailed in ... just like an absentee ballot. The individual could take it home and mail it in," Feinstein said. If a majority mailed the ballots to the National Labor Relations Board, the NLRB would recognize the union.
What about that? Did she say anything about her own "compromise" bill? Well, we don't know, because a bunch of "breathless" delegates from the Santa Clarita Chamber of Commerce who know nothing about the history of the bill or Feinstein's position apparently didn't ask her about it, they just told their story to an equally incurious reporter who quickly decided that they "broke national news" in a "major turn of events."
This doesn't take Feinstein off the hook or anything - she ought to support the perfectly reasonable provisions of the bill as they stand right now. The California Labor Federation is engaging in a two-day hunger strike in front of her San Francisco office (1 Post Street) to bring attention to DiFi's position on Employee Free Choice. But this "breaking news" is, um, broken.
At The Plum Line, Greg Sargent takes a look at Dianne Feinstein's lack of support for the Employee Free Choice Act. She remains the only Congressional Democrat from California not to co-sponsor the bill, and according to her spokesman, she's looking for the mythical bipartisanship pony.
"I have thought for some time that the way to approach this issue is by trying to see if there can't be a compromise between the business community, the agriculture community and labor. This is an extraordinarily difficult economy and feelings are very strong on both sides of the issue. I would hope there is some way to find common ground that would be agreeable to both business and labor."
This is complete nonsense. Employers are firing workers who try to organize. They intimidate workers into voting against their better interests. One out of every four unions elections were marred by illegal firings in 2007. I don't know how you can possibly reconcile the two sides given that scenario.
Furthermore, the invocation of the "difficult economy" is another red herring. Sen. Tom Harkin has already done away with this nonsense by pulling out his history book.
The bill's supporters are pointing to the downturn as the ultimate proof of their arguments that labor's decline has helped put the economy out of balance and that only by restoring workers' purchasing power can the nation return to broadly shared prosperity.
"In 1935, we passed the Wagner Act that promoted unionization and allowed unions to flourish, and at the time we were at around 20 percent unemployment. So tell me again why we can't do this in a recession?" said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), invoking the pro-labor changes of the New Deal. "This is the time to do it. This is exactly the time we should be insisting on a fairer playing field for people to organize themselves."
Because of Sen. Specter's announced opposition, the Employee Free Choice Act faces an uphill battle. But at the very least, Californians should expect that all of their representatives in Washington would understand the need to strengthen unions as a means to strengthening the overall middle class, increasing wages and BOOSTING, not hurting the economy. Feinstein has a choice to make, and you can sign this letter from the Courage Campaign to let her know you're watching her.
Here's a list of all the co-sponsors of the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for workers to join a union and harder for union-busting companies to intimidate and harass their own employees. Since it was introduced on Tuesday, it has gained 223 co-sponsors in the House and 40 in the Senate. If you click on California, you'll get a rundown of every lawmaker in the state who has endorsed.
Do you notice who's missing?
Her name rhymes with Schmeinstein.
And yes, she's the ONLY ONE of the entire Democratic delegation who hasn't endorsed.
Senator Feinstein's Los Angeles office may not be aware of this fun fact. Give them a call at (310) 914-7300, and ask why she's the only California Democrat to withhold her support of the Employee Free Choice Act.
(what's more, if you're a union member, call your local supervisor and make sure they let their superiors know. I'm sure the California Labor Federation would be interested in the news.)
At Wednesday's rally in support of the Employee Free Choice Act, a number of brave workers who have been hurt by our broken labor law system spoke out to explain why we badly need this vital new law to protect the freedom of workers to form a union and bargain.
These workers are just a few of the nearly 30,000 workers who are harassed, discriminated against and fired every year for trying to exercise the freedom to bargain for health care, pensions and fair wages and treatment. Their stories illustrate, on an honest and personal level, the real problem with the nation's current labor laws: People who want to form unions are at the mercy of corporations because the laws are badly tilted toward companies, not workers.
Hilda Solis's confirmation in the Senate HELP Committee was abruptly cancelled today after a report surfaced about her husband paying $6,400 to remove a tax lien on his business.
The report, by USA Today, came just before the Senate's Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee was slated to meet to consider Solis's nomination, which had been delayed by questions over her role on the board of the pro-labor organization American Rights at Work. A source said that committee members did not learn about the tax issue until today.
"Today's executive session was postponed to allow members additional time to review the documentation submitted in support of Representative Solis's nomination to serve in the important position of Labor Secretary," read a joint statement issued by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), the panel's chairman, and Mike Enzi (Wyoming), the committee's ranking Republican. "There are no holds on her nomination and members on both sides of the aisle remain committed to giving her nomination the fair and thorough consideration that she deserves. We will continue to work together to move this nomination forward as soon as possible."
No new date has been set for the hearing. The disclosure about Solis's husband comes after tax problems caused trouble for three of Obama's top appointees, leading two of them -- HHS-nominee Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer, who was to be chief performance officer -- to withdraw.
Senate Republicans have been slow-walking this nomination for weeks, and this revelation gave them another reason to do so. To be clear, we're talking about her husband's business. Given that she's in Congress and is in Washington most of the time, I doubt very highly that she has anything to do with it. In addition, by paying the taxes, Solis and her entire family are adhering to Obama's ethical standards, not subverting them.
So this is the latest in a months-long obstructionism. The LA Times reported today that some GOP members were trying to put a gag order on Solis:
Underscoring the bitter debate over a proposal to make it easier for workers to form unions, Republican senators are suggesting that President Obama's pick for Labor secretary must recuse herself from lobbying for the bill's passage.
In a written exchange with Solis, Republican senators indicated they are wary of her ties to a tax-exempt group dedicated to helping workers unionize [...]
Solis' Cabinet nomination is in the crossfire. She was a co-sponsor of the bill in 2007 and has served for the last four years on the board of American Rights at Work. Solis receives no salary as a board member or treasurer [...]
In their questionnaire, the senators noted that American Rights at Work has lobbied for passage of the bill. They asked Solis whether she would seek a waiver from the Obama administration or avoid any role in passing the legislation.
Solis replied that she does not need a waiver and has no intention of stepping back. She said she was only a member of Congress exercising her powers.
"I am not a registered lobbyist, nor do I in any way meet the statutory requirements for registration as a lobbyist," she wrote.
The American Rights at Work thing is a complete red herring. She was a representative figure for those who supported Employee Free Choice in Congress. She is not a lobbyist. She supported a bill. And so denying her free-speech rights seems ridiculous to the extreme.
I don't know if a family member's tax issue is enough to sink this nomination (like the last Labor Secretary's spouse, one Mitch McConnell, has no ethical issues to speak of), but I for one think Solis should be confirmed. And as for the Employee Free Choice Act, the battle for a fair workplace goes on. Thousands of people are marching in the streets of Los Angeles today in support of free choice.
Good news: Hilda Solis will get a long-awaited confirmation vote to be the Secretary of Labor tomorrow in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. The hold-up was ridiculous, based on "confusion" on Solis' stand on the Employee Free Choice Act, when it was extremely clear where she stood (in full support), and even more clear that as a legislative issue she would have little to do with the legislation until it was enacted. Earlier in the day, Think Progress noted that the right wing was attempting to Daschle-ize Solis for completely bogus reasons:
In the wake of Daschle's departure, the right-wing is gunning for another Cabinet victim - Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), the nominee for Labor Secretary. The Heritage Foundation writes, "Hilda Solis: The Next Tom Daschle?"
According to The Hill, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) "has questioned whether Solis had done lobbying work while she was both a House member and an official at a pro-labor group, American Rights at Work" (ARW) [...]
As for the "conflict of interest" that the right wing is highlighting? Solis wasn't paid for her activities with ARW, and as the Washington Independent pointed out, her role was well-known and ceremonial:
"What would be the charge? Either that she participated in lobbying by being a leader with ARW, or that she erred by originally not mentioning this job in her disclosure documents. Two reasons this might not work: Solis' role in ARW was well-known and ceremonial (it's on their Website), and no congressman has hinted that he/she would file a complaint that could make a splash but not be deemed frivolous and politically motivated."
This is typical right-wing obstructionism designed to score political points. Let's hope Solis is confirmed be a wide margin tomorrow. It's beyond ridiculous.
Related: CA-32 candidate Emanuel Pleitez, one of at least three to declare for Solis' seat, has some good thoughts about the culpability of credit rating agencies in the financial meltdown.
So after huffing and puffing for weeks, Arlen Specter got what he wanted out of the Eric Holder nomination hearings (his main potential primary opponent declined to run against him) and decided to back the Attorney General nominee. After all the talk of principle and judgment, it just took improved electoral prospects for Specter to have a change of heart. Funny how that goes.
But there's another nominee that is languishing, perhaps the only true progressive in Obama's cabinet, and many of us would like to know why. Greg Sargent at his new digs reports on Hilda Solis' nomination:
Why hasn't Hilda Solis been confirmed as Labor Secretary yet, and why haven't we heard from the unions or from the Obama administration about it?
Some top operatives in the labor movement are frustrated with the Obama administration for not giving them the go-ahead to publicly target Republicans who appear to be stalling Solis' confirmation, people in the labor movement familiar with the situation tell me.
The silence from Obama aides on Solis is ominous to some labor officials, because they view the Republican efforts to hold up Solis as a first shot in the larger coming war over the Employee Free Choice Act, a top labor priority. Some labor officials worry that the Obama administration's refusal to make an issue of the hold-up on Solis is a sign that the Obama team won't act aggressively on Employee Free Choice.
"The anonymous hold on Solis is a clear proxy fight for Employee Free Choice," says a top operative at a prominent union. "And from the Obama Adminisitration ... crickets."
I've noticed a strain of thought which believes that all that is needed to achieve Democratic goals in the state is better framing and messaging, because that can get into the media and convince more Californians of the need to restore sanity to the budget process and reform state government. This assumes that there's any kind of substantial political media to begin with. There's shockingly little on local news and radio, and even the newspapers have scaled back their local political coverage. What is currently out there reaches at most 1% of the electorate, and cuts to Capitol bureaus in Sacramento have decreased that gradually over the last year. No media outlet is willing to carry information to the public, a dangerous scenario for a state in crisis.
And because of this breakdown, this provides an opportunity for those with an agenda, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and right-wing think tanks (or even the false equivalent nonsense of a California Forward) to pursue their goals under the cover of "news." They infect what little coverage there is and provide ready-made content in the form of editorials for papers to print. A sorry example of this showed up in yesterday's LA Times, when Bret Jacobson wrote a screed about Hilda Solis' choice as Labor Secretary.
Solis regularly sides with organized labor's demands, including the biggest of them all: union leaders' desperate campaign to boost their membership by getting rid of secret ballot elections. That privacy allows millions of American workers to vote their conscience when deciding whether to start paying dues to a union boss. Consequently, it's easy to see why union bosses prefer "card check" -- a dubious method that requires employees to sign a legally binding card stating their preference in a way that would allow anyone to know if they are pro-union or not.
The fight over card check has already been a precarious affair. And this week, with the announcement of Obama's pick of Solis, the situation got even stickier. Solis has a hypocritical history of demanding secret ballots for herself but not for working Americans.
I don't think I have to go too much further with Jacobson's propaganda. As I've argued elsewhere, what he calls a "secret ballot" is actually a flawed system of union elections that needs to be fixed. If labor elections were legitimate, there wouldn't be the need for legislation. Instead, think of it as your "secret ballot" Presidential election marred by: mandatory pro-McCain training sessions held across the country, mandatory meetings where "Obama is a Muslim" propaganda is foregrounded, threats to take away your job if you vote for Obama, and threats to close your workplace entirely if Obama wins. There is nothing democratic about these one-sided farces characterized by intimidation and harassment. That's why we need a new system for determining whether workers want to collectively bargain, and majority signup is simply the best practice out there.
But that's not my biggest beef with Jacobson's argument. It's that, at the bottom of his editorial, the LA Times credits him by writing "Bret Jacobson is founder and president of Maverick Strategies LLC, a research and communications firm serving business and free-market think tanks." What they don't say is that he has a long history of union-busting, partnering with the man who is leading efforts to fight the Employee Free Choice Act. Matt Browner Hamlin discloses the lack of disclosure:
"Prior to founding Maverick Strategies, Bret co-founded the Center for Union Facts, overseeing that organization's research activities, guiding its communications, launching its new-media capabilities, and helping plan its strategic national advertising and earned-media campaigns."
And just for those not paying attention at home, here's Sourcewatch:
"The Center for Union Facts is a secretive front group for individuals and industries opposed to union activities. It is part of lobbyist Rick Berman's family of front groups including the Employment Policies Institute. The domain name www.unionfacts.com was registered to Berman & Co. in May 2005." [...]
In short, the Center for Union Facts is the key organization in Big Business efforts to stop the progress of labor in America, most notably through fighting against the Employee Free Choice Act. One of their co-founders, Bret Jacobson, was given license to push the Center's anti-union, anti-worker agenda in an op-ed against the nominee for Labor Secretary, while the Times failed to disclose the only informative part of his biography. He's the founder of a research firm? What is that supposed to tell the Times' readers? Pretty much every person I know who works in politics does some level of consulting. The most important piece of Jacobson's biography - his professional connection to one of the biggest anti-union groups in America - is left out of a column that specifically pushes the Center's agenda. In an AP article three days ago, a spokesman for the Center attacked President-elect Obama's pick of Solis for Labor Secretary (though, amazingly, the AP cited the Center as "a group critical of organized labor").
Matt works for the SEIU. There, I just disclosed that. Congratulations to me for having more integrity than the Los Angeles Times!
The Employee Free Choice Act is a national issue. But when you have a corporate-run media (the LA Times editorial board has a history of anti-worker pontificating) combined with a nearly invisible political class so that Californians have no base of knowledge about their government, the ease with which propagandists can place their beliefs into what little political media exists is frankly breathtaking. There is plenty of blame to go around in California's current crisis, but the lack of any responsible (or even present) certainly contributes to it.
I saw Bill Maher on Friday in an interview with former Mexican President Vicente Fox, lamenting that Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger wouldn't be able to face off as Presidential candidates due to Constitutional violations. "Isn't that sad," he said. For all his conceits as a free thinker, Maher represents a kind of baseline Hollywood groupthink when it comes to Arnold, reading the headlines and the magazine covers but never bothering to uncover the whole story. That story can be easily divined from this weekend's veto massacre. In addition to stopping the California DREAM Act, he vetoed needed legislation for the state's migrant farm workers, allowing them to organize through a "card check" system. He even disabled a bill that would have added a sunset clause to the card check system, making it ever harder for them to organize and support themselves and their families. Here's another bill that went down the drain:
There are a bunch of things that I wanted to post about that I might as well highlight in one post, kind of like when Asia recruited members of Yes, King Crimson, and Uriah Heep to create a "supergroup":
• BeDevine notes that yet another gender-neutral marriage bill has passed the Legislature, and once again Arnold Schwarzenegger has vowed to veto it because "the people have already spoken on that issue." Apparently the people don't vote for their own representatives in the state legislature. And at what point does the statute of limitations run out on referring to a ballot measure from 2000?
• Senator Loewenthal has pulled back the container fee bill that would have charged importers a $30 fee on each cargo container to go towards fighting pollution at the ports. This will go into negotiation and probably be passed in some form in 2008. Hopefully it'll be a form that will still have some teeth.
• Dan Weintraub makes the fallacious argument that the United Farm Workers are somehow betraying their principles by asking for the ability to form a union after a majority of employees sign cards endorsing it. He thinks that there's no intimidation in a secret ballot election, apparently ignoring decades of union busting, threats, and workplace closures that have arisen from attempts to unionize.
• As mentioned in the Quickies, the CA Hospital Association has agreed to a tax in themselves... sort of. In exchange, they would receive money back to them based on how many poor people they treat. Most hospitals would actually make money on the deal. It's also hard to see how this would do anything to fix our state's strained emergency rooms, which presumably is where these poor people would be encouraged to go for treatment.
• Also in the Quickies is some good news on the enviroment, as new CARB chief Mary Nichols has set some pretty strong targets for emissions cuts. They're first steps but they presage positive developments in the future.
• Finally, the Teamsters waged a successful protest at the California-Mexico border against the Bush Administration effort to allow 100 Mexican trucking companies to deliver goods anywhere in the United States. This will not only damage our environment and public safety by opening up the roads to unsafe Mexican trucks, it undermines American job security for one of the few good union industries left to our working class. The goal is to marginalize unionized truckers, pure and simple. Matt Stoller thinks this could be the next "Dubai ports deal" if the word gets out about it.
It is one step forward, one step back today on the labor front. On a more positive note, the House of Representatives just passed the Employee Free Choice Act 241-185. It faces a tough slog in the Senate and certain veto by Bush. However, the people's house just voted overwhelmingly to protect workers against harassment and intimidation.
California's own Rep. George Miller makes us proud with his closing remarks today. (h/t to the Gavel)
