Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
June 26, 2007 11:38 AM
Do Dems Lack Strategery, Or Are They Avoiding It?
Though Will Ferrell famously ridiculed George Bush's "strategery," Republicans in Washington were pretty good legislative strategists when they controlled Congress. They often employed the very basic method of attaching something they wanted that was politically unpopular to something politically popular that enough Democrats would be forced to vote for to get it through the Senate (where 60 votes are often needed). You could always tell how much Republicans really wanted something by looking at the vehicle they were attaching it to. The more popular/necessary that vehicle, the more you knew the GOP wanted it. If they attached something to, say, a must-pass government spending bill, you knew they really wanted to pass what they were attaching.
I bring this up because I was sad to see what I think is the not-necessarily-inevitable Senate defeat of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) - the most important labor law reform in decades.
The EFCA is a bill that helps workers avoid Wal-Mart-style intimidation efforts when they dare to consider forming a union to collectively bargain with their employer. Not surprisingly, it is a bill that Corporate America despises and that thus unifies the bought-and-paid-for Republican Party in opposition.
Why, then, would Democratic leaders bring up the Employee Free Choice Act as a standalone bill? By doing that while knowing this was a bill the GOP would be so adamantly against, they engineered a legislative situation that allowed that GOP opposition to occur with the minimum amount of political consequences.
Consider the alternative. Imagine that Democrats attached EFCA to another piece of legislation that is very popular and non-controversial - a bill that Americans would be appalled to see anyone vote against. That would increase the likelihood that some Republicans would peel off for fear of voting against the very popular vehicle, and would embarrass the remaining Republicans who voted against the overall package. These Republican opponents would be left making an argument about the technicalities of labor law while Democrats were battering them for opposing the attached bill. We've seen this very thing happen, in fact. Remember the 2002 debate over the bill creating the Department of Homeland Security. Democrats were arguing about union rights while Bush was hammering them for delaying a bill that he said would protect America's national security. Bush ended up getting his version of the bill while drubbing Democrats in the 2002 mid-term election.
So again the question is why? Why would Democratic leaders bring up EFCA as a standalone bill - that is, in a form that is most politically easy for the average Republican to oppose? Is it just that Democrats have no sense of "strategery?" Or is it something more insidious?
Does it have something to do with Democrats wanting to set up a situation that allows them to claim they care about workers and labor rights, while making sure that those labor rights continue to get trampled? This wouldn't be unprecedented...at all. In fact, we saw this situation recently on the Iraq bill, where Democrats manipulated parliamentary procedure to deliberately engineer a situation that let them simultaneously claim they were doing all they could to oppose the war while helping make sure the war continues. Are we experiencing the same thing now with worker rights? And if we are, does it have something to do with the spate of stories about Big Business showering top Democratic leaders in cash and throwing Democratic Hill staffers offers of six-figure corporate lobbying jobs?
I honestly don't know the answer, as it can sometimes be very tough to tell whether the behavior from folks in Congress is driven by short-sightedness or corruption. That said, its not like Senate defeat of EFCA was a surprise - Democrats knew from the get-go that it would lose as a standalone bill, meaning it really is possible they don't truly want it to pass in the first place. Additionally, Roll Call reported earlier this month that a "senior House Democratic aide" was assuring top corporate lobbyists that "this card check bill is never going to see the light of day."
Thus, moving forward, the bottom line is clear: If Democrats really want to get EFCA passed - as American workers need them to and as they should as the supposed party that represents those workers - it's going to take a hell of a lot more than setting up legislative scenarios that make sure EFCA doesn't pass. Some may argue that attaching the EFCA to something else is legislatively uncouth. To them I say, start getting serious about power. In a legislative body, the power comes from the rules - and we elected Democrats in 2006 to use that power to enact a progressive agenda, not just talk about it while citing Beltway manners and Senate floor etiquette as the reason for inaction.
In the coming weeks, we can look to the strategic maneuvers to find out whether Democrats are serious about passing this legislation, or whether they merely want to LOOK like they are serious about passing this legislation. Stay tuned.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- Teaching McCain Econ 101
- Fox News at 5:15 EST
- Will the Elite Pay Their Fair Share?
- What's Right and Wrong With This Picture
- Bill Kristol Needs to Get Out More
- Six Words for Better Wages...And Why We Need to Promote Ideological Warriors
- What A Huge Scandal!
- Radio West
- Report: America's "Free" Trade Policies Harming Rural Latin America
- Free Speech TV
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
July 29, 2008 -
July 23, 2008 -
July 15, 2008 -
July 8, 2008 -
July 1, 2008
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
I think this idea SUCKS.
I know the Dems haven't exactly made good on their promise to end the corruption, but I feel this is one of the worst tricks in the book. Let's not sink to the Republican's level of slime.
Attaching unrelated riders, whether we agree with them or not, is counter to the idea of an informed debate and electorate. Just like it was shitty to attach anti-union laws to the Homeland Security bill, so it is just as shitty to attach a pro-union bill to an unrelated measure. We are no less shitty just because we LIKE the provision inserted.
Yes, the current system sucks,and real workers aren't going to be able to unionize any better, and yes, Dems are probably going to claim to be supporting labor without going through the trouble of supporting labor, but let's keep everything above board now. I think it's worth losing a battle or two.
The Democrats in MS and nationwide have FAILED MISERABLY !!! We gave them our trust and THEY GAVE US THE MIDDLE FINGER !!! I remember when I angrily voted to recall Ronnie Musgrove back in 2003 because he fucking sold us voters out by joining the GEE OH PEE as did a lot of fake Democrats. Oh sure, the legislature would be a Democratic majority but by the way legislation was passed, you would think that it was Republican. The Democrats are too cowardice and as George Lakoff correctly said, they keep rolling over to the conservatives 9 out of 10 times. It's time to use those Dem pols as perfect hunting targets since all they do is go to bed with the GEE OH PEE anyway and let themselves get FUCKED !
The Dems don't lack a strategy IMO, its rampant corruption at the top of the party that killed this bill.
Look Pelosi and Reid are not stupid by any measure, corrupt yes, stupid no. And Pelosi hails from a family of career pols so she knows every legislative trick in the book to boot. Reid knows a lot of senate tricks as well.
The thing is riders are part of the way business is done in D.C. and both sides use this to get through legislation that otherwise would die a quick death like the EFCA.
What this means is that the Democratic leadership never had any intention of letting this bill pass.
It was a Kabuki dance for the uninformed and gullible union types and it succeeded if the comments at Dkos are any indication. Hell those lexus driving latte drinkers at dkos are positively giddy over this faux display of legislative bravery.
I just wish the activist class within the party weren't such pathetic losers and mindless cheerleaders for the party bosses and instead focused on really reforming the party.
Because the country and its people are slowly being serfsized by both parties and within a decade there will be no U.S.A left.
But then maybe they have it? Every Republican but one was called out on the carpet for an up or down vote on EFCA. They can't say I voted against it for it before I voted against it.
This is clearly a cynical move by Neo Dems to go into 08 with a working class issue that will cover up their NAFTA whoring, yet get labor excited about electing Dems.
I have a different take on this. If it's true, as I have heard, that a significant majority of union members favor the secret ballot approach, even though their leaders do not, then should politicians just ignore that and vote according to who made generous campaign contributions (with workers' dues, no less)? Not in my book.
Perhaps it's fair to say that the Democrats sold out "big union leadership", by not maneuvering more artfully, but that's not the same thing as selling out "workers" in this case.
If unions are being beaten down via unfair practices by employers during organization drives, then that's what needs to be fixed. Say the GOP uses voter suppression to win elections, for example. That doesn't mean we should do away with elections and instead go with a voice vote or applause meter on every town square in America.
Terry,
Are you saying that the majority of union members do not favor the EFCA. That seems like stretch. If I was asked do I favor a secret ballot, my answer would probably be yes. But there is not one thing in the bill that says one can't have secret ballots, only that an additional method of card check. It seems to me saying that voting against EFCA is the pro worker position is silly.
Henry,
Sure --- that is what I am saying. Here is the source:
Zogby International poll of 703 union members conducted in June 2004 for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Joseph Lehman, "Union Members' Attitudes Towards Their Unions' Performance," Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Policy Brief S2004-05, September 1, 2004, at www.mackinac.org/archives/2004/s2004-05.pdf
The survey also reports that about 2/3rds of those surveyed would not favor a provisions whereby the company and union could agree to skip the secret ballot. I suppose that's because of the possible "sweetheart union" approach, among other reasons.
I think the data also shows that in only 2-3% of union representation election processes are unfair labor practices even FILED. So where is the problem? Seems to me that's a whole lot cleaner than general elections in politics. I used to educate supervisors and managers about the rules, and the last thing the company I worked for wanted was the bad publicity/reputation of having charges filed.
I have studied labor relations and worked in the field and worked in union settings 3 times, and worked for the NLRB as an intern a long time ago. I have a good appreciation of the role of unions, and respect some (but not all) of their leadership cadre. It just seems to me this is either bad legislation, or unnecessary legislation. Passing laws to fix what isn't broken, or to pander to a certain group against the will of the majority, that's unnecesary and bad.
For once, and it doesn't happen often these days, I am with the GOP. Scary days when that happens.
The Democrats are a house divided.
The main split is between the Republi-lites/Blue Dog Republicans, who have sold out to K-street's agendas; the populists, many of whom came to the Beltway in 2006; and the aging Hippie/left wing-nuts who are still trying to push the 1970s agendas which lost the Democratic party much of their true base to start with.
The only way the Democrats are going to get anything done is when the grass-roots movements fire the Republi-lites, elect more populists, and tell the aging Hippies to shut the eff up.
We need to choose our candidates, send them money directly, and tell the DNC/DLC to go fly a kite.
I agree with Butte. The Republican lites need to take back their own party from the whacko right wing nuts and leave the Labor Party alone. We have a fair amount of them in Montana. Thank goodness I was never a hippie. I am now aging, but always have been a populist and a liberal.
The war is lost. It's just a supreme court mopping up action now. The constitution is gutted.
"The only way the Democrats are going to get anything done is when the grass-roots movements fire the Republi-lites, elect more populists, and tell the aging Hippies to shut the eff up."
Hey, people, let's quit beating around the Bush. The only way to take back this country is with a NEW Party of the People. The Democrat (and I emphasize the 'rat' here) Party has had its run. They are not for the people of this country. Those populists that have been elected will be marginalized until they join the DLCers or quit.
The movers and shakers of the Dim Party are firmly in bed with the Corporates/DLC. There has to be a paradigm shift. What we have now is not working! The sooner we see that, the sooner things will start to sort themselves out.
(Oh, and beware the Otters that say they are Progressives and then say they are with the G.O.P. on certain issues. The GOP is monolithic. One Party...one set of rules...you are "of the body" or not. The Progressives have to be FOR any tool that helps the people and allows them to improve their lives, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness. Unions do help improve people's lives.)
I tend to agree that the Democrats have run their course and that the party cannot be reformed. You can see that in the hostile reception that Sirota gets every time he posts at Dkos. You'd think he was Nixon the way he gets treated there.
To me this shows that many Democrats are not into questioning anything in regards to the party. This spells disaster for any reform movement because it requires people who question the status-quo and not those who mindlessly protect it.
Speaking of odd treatment on other forums, here are two comments I made in 3 days at HuffPost. Both were removed. The first was in a thread about Cheney's role in the White House, the second was in the thread for this topic over there, as a reply to some fool claiming the EFCA bill eliminated secret elections. Any ideas why these were censored?
-------
If Theoden was a drooling idiot who's only higher functioning was false bravado, Rove would be Grima Wormtongue and Cheney would be Saruman.
Impeaching Cheney the Black should have been the objective of the first 100 hours, not passing a bunch of legislation the Democrats knew would be automatically vetoed.
-------
-------
That's an easy one, because you are willfully presenting a deceptive premise.
This bill did not eliminate secret elections. It added an option for signing a card away from the work site, if employer intimidation was occurring which might slant an election.
This is an option. An extra option, when needed. Nothing in this bill eliminated the secret ballot option.
The opponents of this measure who make the claim that this bill eliminates the secret ballot are calculating liars.
-------
EVERY BILL SHOULD BE A STANDALONE BILL. Let these bills pass or fail on their own merit. Let the votes reflect the merits of those legislators who vote for or against the bills. Basically, limit all amendments accross the board! If these politicians are in the pocket of big biz and against the working people they should be CLEARLY noted as such. Conversely, those that voted for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) should be noticed and celebrated.
Let's clarify the process not muddy it up. It would be a great way of getting rid of the whole "triangulation" voting and poison-pill amendments that only delay and sometimes kill the passing of some important laws. No more of this "gotcha" votes, where someone has to vote something he doesn't want because there is something he does want in the bill. That's not democracy. That's manipulation. And it's wrong. It shouldn't be a part of the very important work of making laws for our Country. NO AMENDMENTS!!
Join the Discussion