A Top Clinton Aide Draws Criticism From Unions
The presidents of two large labor unions have written to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to complain that Mark Penn, her pollster and chief strategist, is chief executive of a public relations firm that is helping a company fight a unionization drive.
In the letter sent Friday, which a labor official released yesterday, James P. Hoffa, president of the Teamsters, and Bruce Raynor, president of Unite Here, wrote that they did not want to see Mrs. Clinton or the Democratic Party embarrassed by the anti-union activities of Mr. Penn’s firm, Burson-Marsteller, one of the nation’s leading public relations companies.
“If Hillary is pro-worker and pro-union, she will certainly take steps to rein in Mr. Penn,” Mr. Hoffa said in an interview. “He cannot serve two masters, working for a pro-union candidate and working for anti-union companies.”
In the letter, Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Raynor said, “It is with distress that we write you today,” adding that they valued Mrs. Clinton’s positions on many worker-related issues.
They said the public relations firm’s “activities in the effort to undermine workers’ right to organize at Cintas, a campaign our unions are involved in, is particularly disheartening.” Four years ago, the two unions began a major drive to unionize 17,000 workers at the Cintas Corporation, the nation’s largest uniform rental company. Cintas, helped by Burson-Marsteller, has responded with a vigorous - and thus far successful - effort to resist unionization.
Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Raynor, whose union represents apparel, hotel and restaurant workers, noted that they had learned of Burson-Marsteller’s anti-union activities in an article last week in The Nation magazine. Their action comes as Mrs. Clinton prepares to speak at an A.F.L.-C.I.O. forum on Saturday in Detroit.
Mr. Penn did polling for Bill Clinton when he was president and has long been a top adviser to Mrs. Clinton. Thirty years ago, Mr. Penn founded a prominent polling firm, now known as Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates. In December 2005, he was named chief executive of Burson-Marsteller.
In interviews, Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Raynor stopped short of calling on Mrs. Clinton to disassociate herself from Mr. Penn.
Mr. Raynor said, “She ought to send a clear message to this guy Penn that she is unhappy about this union-busting stuff and that he shouldn’t be associated with it.”
Mr. Penn, speaking for himself and for the Clinton presidential campaign, said: “Senator Clinton’s well-documented support for pro-union causes would not in any way be affected by some clients in a firm related to the corporate network of one of her advisers. There is no connection whatsoever with her pro-union record.”
Mr. Penn said that he had worked for Democratic candidates for 30 years and that Burson-Marsteller worked for Democrats and Republicans.
As for Cintas, he said, “I personally had zero involvement in any of the work related to Cintas.” He said Burson-Marsteller had begun representing Cintas well before he joined the firm.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
So he’s content to draw a profit from Union busting but that doesn’t actually make him a Union buster? Only a politician could see it that way.
Goldman Sachs is giving $$ to all the top tier candidates, rethugs and wimpocrats. other interests are doing likewise. that’s the real issue. mark penn is just there for the rhetoric and propoganda, aka the campaign.
This is the same company that Uribe (President of Colombia, the most dangerous country in the world for union organizing) hired to smooth the way for a free trade agreement between Colombia and the US. Plus, Uribe is giving President Clinton an award on Friday night! Check out more on the Labor is not a commodity blog: http://laborrightsblog.typepad.com/international_labor_right/2007/06/what_do_shakira.html.
Kucinich and Edwards are probably the only candidates that are pro-labor. The corporate elite are pushing Clinton and Obama but their candidacies are not in our interest. Better to vote for a wolf than a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Ms. Clinton is Mrs. NAFTA
Don’t kid yourself that she is pro-labor.
“…Mrs. Clinton prepares to speak at an A.F.L.- C.I.O. forum…”
AFL-CIO is one of the unions that didn’t speak out about the recent secret trade deal.
DLC and Labor are diametrically opposed. We all know what the DLC is about, as Peter R pointed out about GATT and NAFTA. They are even receiving funding from the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce, long time Republican donors.
A whore will sell himself to any buyer. It’s the United States of Everything, and land of the fee.
Hoa binh
Hilary Clinton is associated with some of the most reactionary people in politics.
The slimeballs at Penn, Schoen and Bernard have been involved in Venezuela in 2004 and 2006 where the company cooked opinion polls to tyr to convince the populace that Hugo Chavez would lise the recall election in2004, and would barely defeat Rosales, the U.S. candidate in the 2006 elections. Chavez won by 63% to 37%. Public Relations companies are slime balls, and Hilary chooses the slimeist. She is a disaster waiting to happen. If she is the Democratic candidate, pogo gets my vote.
Ha! Penn says, “I personally had zero involvement in any of the work related to Cintas.” Apparently, it’s all just a big game for him. The co. of which he is CEO works for anybody who can pay. It’s not a matter of morality. Conscience doesn’t enter into it. $$$ are the prime mover.
No news here, Unions just like the majority of Americans either don’t vote or vote against their own interests. They should not be surprised that the major parties’ major candidates openly screw them over.
The odds are again that the worst of each party will get selected to run for president. The good news is that if we are able to survive Bu$h the inferior and Tom Delay at the same time we can survive anything.
Of course, I was hoping to avoid proving American toughness as a way of life.
vote Kucinech
I have to look on the bright side. If Clinton is elected, then Rush Limbaugh and FOX News will actually become entertaining as they bash her non-stop, for all the wrong reasons of course, but you can’t have everything.
the right wing will not come out for whoever wins the republican nomination for president, at least they won’t come out in the numbers needed for them to win. so its a democrap as president. might as well vote your conscience. vote Kucinech, and vote Green.
Oh, I thought the witch who sat on Wal-Mart’s board for 6 years would be pro-labor
These new Democrats are just the old Republicans
Lesser-evilism is the cowards domain
There is a great BBC documentary series called the “Century of the Self” which includes the manipulation of Mr. Penn and the government policy of the Clintons.
I think it is in the epsiode callled “Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering” that explains how the Clintons became so reliant on Penn for policy advice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r2yLlZ_tmY
Why on earth would anyone think Hillary is ‘pro-worker’ and ‘pro-union’? Yes, she’ll get up and lie to anyone to say she is. But there’s a long track record of the Clintons both in the White House and in Arkansas that says exactly the opposite. Anyone who knew anything about the Clintons in Arkansas and their relationship with Tyson Chicken knew this in 1992. If anything they are worse today.
Why it isn’t incredibly obvious by this time I have no freakin idea. The only thing I can think of is that the one political skill the Clintons have always had is being such good liars that they make people believe something incredibly different from what they really do.
A Clinton administration will be WORSE than what we have had under Bush. That’s because the Democrats will line up and support anything that comes from a Democratic President, even if its something that if it had come from a Republican they’d have fought it tooth and nail. Go back and remember how we got NAFTA, WTO, Welfare Reform and the rest shoved down our throats during the first Clinton era. To fight any of this you end up fighting all the Republicans and lots of the Democrats. The votes don’t always show it as once they have the votes to win their pro-corporate agenda, they turn loose some of the Democrats so they can pretend to oppose it.
COMarc,
I couldn’t agree with your final paragraph more. There is an added dimension, however, and that is the Republicans could be counted on to attack from the right even the most staunchly neoliberal and militaristic policy initiatives of the Democrats. Given the similarity of the Democrats’ underlying economic and foreign policy worldviews to those of the right-wing, and given the ease with which they are intimidated by the most jingoistic elements of the political establishment and the general population alike (not to mention their desire to placate such elements), there is really scant evidence that the Democrats would be anything more than a tactical variant of the right-wing power structure.
Additionally, the Democrats would be considerably more successful at gaining the cooperation and the assistance of our closest allies in any imperialistic endeavor. The Democrats, especially the Clinton variety, are simply smoother operators than the current administration and have a better relationship with foreign governments than the boorish, arrogant chaps currently in power.