Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Dark Days But a Ray of Hope for Embattled Workers
The Democrats in Congress have sold out their supporters in the labor movement by giving up the so-called "card-check" feature of the embattled Employee Free Choice Act, which makes the "reform" legislation that has been billed as labor's "number one issue" much less of a reform. Instead of being hammered into line on this issue by party leaders and by President Obama, who has long pledged to back EFCA, conservative Democrats in the House and Senate were allowed to join Republicans in opposing the measure, leading to its replacement with a vague plan to require quicker secret-ballot elections in union-organizing drives.
But largely unnoticed by the corporate media, there has been some really important good news for working people and the labor movement: the appointment of three people to fill the long-vacant empty seats on the five-member National Labor Relations Board, which has the ultimate job of adjudicating issues under the National Labor Relations Act.
The Bush administration had basically gutted the NLRA by simply failing, since 2007, to fill the three seats that had been emptied as prior board members' five-year terms had expired. This had left the NLRB with only two members, one a Democratic, pro-labor appointee, and one a Republican pro-management appointee. Since these two members would vote on opposite sides of most issues, the only issues they ended up issuing decisions on were 400 particularly egregious cases, where they could both agree-and most of those are still in legal limbo since they have been challenged in court on the basis that board rules require a three-member quorum.
The Obama administration, in April, announced three new appointments to fill the vacant seats, while the current Democratic member of the board, Wilma Liebman, was elevated to NLRB chair, replacing the incumbent Republican, Peter Schaumber.
The new members, two Democrats and one Republican in accordance with a long tradition of presidents keeping minority representation on the board, are Craig Becker, Mark Gaston Pearce and Brian Hayes. Becker, currently an associate general counsel to the Service Employees International Union, was appointed to a term that expires in 2014. Pearce, a private attorney from Buffalo, NY specializing in representing labor law from the labor side, was appointed to a term that expires in 2013. Hayes, currently the Republican labor policy director on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, previously worked as a labor law attorney with a firm that exclusively represents management.
The appointments gives unions and working people a solid 3-2 majority on the NLRB for the first time in almost a decade, and ends a period in which the board has essentially been sidelined, leaving unions and workers with little recourse as employers have worked to undermine existing contracts and squelch new organizing drives.
One of the primary functions of the NLRB in enforcing labor laws has been responding to unfair labor practice charges filed by unions and workers and to anti-union actions taken by managements. Because of the Bush/Cheney administration's refusal to fill vacant seats, the board was largely unable to resolve those disputes-a situation that has led to a proliferation of illegal actions against workers and unions by corporations.
The firing of union organizers, the intimidation of workers who support unions, the hiring of permanent replacement workers (scabs) during authorized strikes, the refusal to hold elections after the submission of cards supporting a union by a majority of workers in a workplace-all illegal-have become commonplace in America during the Bush/Cheney years, in no small part because the NLRB had become virtually dysfunctional.
At this point, the board still has only two members, as the Senate still needs to ratify the nomination of the three additional board members. So far, there is no sign that Republicans will attempt to block the appointments, which the Obama administration plans to submit as a package. "I think this will be a straight shot for all three members," says David Parker, deputy executive secretary of the NLRB.
The only way these nominations would fail would be if some of the same conservative Democrats in the Senate who have betrayed workers by refusing to support, and ultimately killing, the card-check provision of the EFCA were to side with Republicans in blocking them.
This seems unlikely, but given the sorry history of the Democratic Party in terms of betraying historic progressive traditions and in betraying key supporters, and given President Obama's evident desire to avoid conflict with Republicans and conservative members of his own party in Congress, anything is possible these days.
23 Comments so far
Show Allbush's attack on his own government on a department by department basis has left the government less and less able to get anything done, as noted in this article
other reports in the news have noted how the appointees of bushco live on in departments everywhere - with the agenda of defeating policy they don't agree with
and then they have the nerve to disparage the government's ability to get anything done
we remember katrina - you're doing a great job brownie - and sadly, he was
running down the government and its ability to act in congress for the greater public good has been trashed by the gop and the msm for so many years it has become a given
a false one, but a given at last
health care is a good example. there is a debate going on about health care that is, in essence, a debate about hmo profits
every other industrialized country has been able to run a one payer system and in none of those countries does the health care hmo profit levels figure as the prime fundamental
only in the us
most of the flack in this argument is that generated by hmo's and they should have none
who cares what they think or how much money they will lose
last time i looked - health care involved delivering medical assistance to the public - not the denied care profits of the hmo's
It is good to hear Lindorff acknowledge how the Democratic party has betrayed every progressive issue, especially labor, and acknowledge that Obama cares more about capitulating to capital than honoring his campaign rhetoric to his constituency...
Even though all of this has been predictable prior to the 2008 election based on their voting track record in congress...
it is good to hear of folks coming to their senses, albiet after the fact... Better late than never...
Not to put too fine a point on it, because I know criticizing anyone who voted for Obama in 2008 is a cottage industry among some people on the left who want to show how urbane and wise they were, but in fact it wasn't clear before '08 that so many Democrats would betray the party's labor base. Obama himself had voted FOR EFCA when it came up the last time, as did a number of Democrats who have become turncoats on the bill.
Again, though at this point I should probably just make this a macro to respond to the predictable criticism, I never said I supported Obama's election because I expected him to be a progressive leader. Rather, i said that there was the chance that he could be pressured by a mass popular grassroots movement to do progressive things. So far, no such progressive movement has developed, not on domestic issues and not on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I would say that the betrayals of this administration and this Congress are not so much the fault of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, as they are of the American public, and particularly progressives, including the labor movement, the various third parties, and the movements like Move-On, Citizens Action, Democrats For America, etc., who have failed to call for militant actions to demand progressive action--by which I mean a million-person march on Wall St. to shut the place down, a million-person march and camp-in in Washington to demand single-payer health care, etc.
It's kind of infantile to say "I knew he'd be a corporate shill." Big deal. Every politician in power is essentially a corporate shill. The point is to make them do the right thing, and that takes militancy. My point last fall was that if we had McCain/Palin in the White House, no amount of militant action short of revolution would force progressive change to happen. But with Obama in the White House--and this is still true--militant action could produce some of the changes we want.
Disagree if you want, but at least don't misrepresent my position. I have never put any faith in Democrats to do the right thing on their own, and far from "coming to my senses," am of the same view now that I have always been.
Dave Lindorff
Visit Dave Lindorff's website at www.thiscantbehappening.net
"...I never said I supported Obama's election because I expected him to be a progressive leader. Rather, i said that there was the chance that he could be pressured by a mass popular grassroots movement to do progressive things."
Mr. Lindorff, while I understand the point of your response in defense of your article, you must admit that Obama has made it more difficult by surrounding himself with and appointing as cabinet members, folks with a clear corporate agenda --- more foxes, if you will, guarding the hen house. At least FDR had some true progressives whispering in his ear.
"I would say that the betrayals of this administration and this Congress are not so much the fault of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, as they are of the American public..."
Again, while I agree that progressive organizations have failed us in a comprehensively organizational, in your words, "militant" way, it is quite clear that our corporate-owned media and educational institutions, continue to either 'dumb us down', keep us afraid, categorized, or overspecialized, and thus, divided and conquered all in subservience to the Ruling Class that gave us choice A) or B).
Thank you, mr. Lindorff, for taking the time to elucidate your viewpoint... I don't want to misrepresent your position either, only to come to understand it...
It has nothing to do with feeling smarter-than-though or "I told you so"...
Democrats have been betraying the labor base for 28 years...
A mere chance of a candidate leaning progressive on an issue after widespread demonstrations and shutting down DC is not my idea of hope & change...
I agree that there has been no call from MoveOn & other extensions of the democratic party to hold Obama's feet to the fire, or protest the expansion of war into Pakistan, or anything else for that matter, for they are serving their function by not doing anything substantially progressive... And not even the standard reactionary liberal Actions like protesting and demonstrations...
You are saying that it is not the fault of congress or the potus for betraying their constituency on the issues and party platform, especially when they have the white house and a majority in both houses of congress... But rather the fault of the American people? By that logic, it was their own fault for voting for him/them in the first place, knowing that they would have to organize a million man march to shut down the Capitol for each & every issue... How unrealistic !
Conventional forms of protest don't change anything, as evidenced by the millions of people protesting the iraq invasion prior to the fact...
If organized labor's union bosses really wanted to change things, they would call for a national general stryke... and a boycott of corporate products and services, and a BUYcott of local products & services...
It is infantile to assume that a revolution or a mass demonstration attempting to shutdown congress is the solution, with posse comitatus & habeus corpus gone, and Blackwater & us army stationed on US soil, and FEMA camps waiting for the declaration of martial law... It would be playing into their predictable dialectic...
Third party candidates like mckinney are folks with integrity that a mass movement can rally behind, so being dismissive of them is adolescent at best...
"I would say that the betrayals of this administration and this Congress are not so much the fault of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, as they are of the American public, and particularly progressives, including the labor movement, the various third parties, and the movements like Move-On, Citizens Action, Democrats For America"
Please. Not another blame the citizens speech. This Congress and this President are responsible for what they do. The American public is speaking, this bunch isn't listening. And groups like Move.On have lost whatevr credibility they had and speak to an ever so small audience.
Not that I can say much...I voted for the guy, but if I could I'd eake it back pronto. This looks to be a bad Congress and a bad President.
We disagreed about card check and some other things, but keep on pitching because it does look like its happening again. Its all hands to a sinking government Sir.
Regards
D. Lindorff:
"I would say that the betrayals of this administration and this Congress are not so much the fault of Obama and the Democrats in Congress, as they are of the American public, and particularly progressives, including the labor movement, the various third parties, and the movements like Move-On, Citizens Action, Democrats For America, etc., who have failed to call for militant actions to demand progressive action--by which I mean a million-person march on Wall St. to shut the place down, a million-person march and camp-in in Washington to demand single-payer health care, etc."
I totally agree with that, however I would go a bit further in the analysis and putting all of the blame on folks that have been co-opted and indirectly victimized by the system is only half the story.
If we compare the de-facto democratic process with theory (see Robert Dahl's "On Democracy" or "Democracy and it's Critics"; and various works of Arend Lijphardt "Consociational Democracy") and observations of folks like Chomsky and Zinn, we can clearly see that there are huge holes and massive distortions in our democracic process. Chomsky calls our democratic system a "sham", I agree with him.
For example, our interest representation system (and legal framework) views money as free speech and can be likened to legal bribery. Corporations have personal rights, giving them huge disproportional power. One of the most basic elements of a democratic system (electoral and election systems) is fraudulent. This is swept under the rug, while we point fingers at other countries. Our winner-takes all (pluralistic) electoral system is a sham and a majority of votes are wasted. The electoral college is an anti-democratic sham. Barely 50% of eligible voters bother to register and vote. Our public media is controlled by a corporate oligopoly where quality information is almost absent. Our public education system does not provide our children with adequate knowledge of civics and democracy.
So tell me, how is our system "democratic" when compared to theory? Do we have equal access to policy formation? Is the winner takes all electoral system proportional, free and fair? Does money as free speech distort majoritarian democratic outcomes?
Does the public discourse provide us with quality information that is crucial to making informed decisions?
BTW, unless you bother to answer some of the more serious questions posed here, I could not be bothered to visit your website.
David Lindorff: First off, let me thank you for the "compliment" when you said that "criticizing anyone who voted for Obama in 2008 is a cottage industry among some people on the left who want to show how urbane and wise they were" At the risk of sounding too wise and urbane, I must say that that this zinger is the second such shot I have experienced in my "critical" career. As a critic of the Warren Commission conclusions on the JFK assassination, I and fellow critics were accused of making a "cottage industry" of that criticism: a charge made by people like Gerald Posner who were making a great deal of money off their WC-supporting books, while critics, myself included, were spending a great deal of our money without remuneration for our "cottage industry" efforts. Words can hurt and these do.
Secondly, I just want to respond as have a few other of the "urbane and wise" on this comments thread to your statement, expressed in this post, that you did not support Obama because you expected him to do progressive things of his own accord, but that he would be more amenable than his Republican opponents (the only ones that you and other lesser evilists were considering as possibilities) and that it would be your hope (which you admit has been disappointed) that grassroots pressure would "force" him to do the progressive things. Here's what I think is the fallacy in this: If you elect officials who don't operate from their own principals but from the "pressures" that are placed on them (whether D or Rs of any other party members), they are going to go with the balance of pressures exerted by all forces. In our military and corporate dominated society, the "pressures" will necessarily be predominantly on the side of the money and the social power, and short of the most violent revolution, these popular pressures can never hold up against the countervailing ones of that power elite. When we have to resort to ruling from "the streets," we are going to lose in the end. However flawed are our elections, they are really the only route to popular power that I can see as remotely successful in leading toward that goal. So please, for future elections, let us choose our leaders not in terms of those we think will be the most amenable to pressure, but those whom we judge to have the most internal pressure from that wee small voice of conscience that tells them to do what is right and not what they are "forced" by popular pressure to do.
"...by which I mean a million-person march on Wall St. to shut the place down, a million-person march and camp-in in Washington to demand single-payer health care, etc."
But, but how can I participate in such a thing? I would have to take vacation time and spend at least 300-400 dollars on an airplane ticket. TWICE if I were to do both!
I've already planned my trip to the beach and So You Think You Can Dance is on both Wednesday AND Thursday nights! You sir, ask far too much.
Yeah--"militancy" as in lining up like sheep to be herded into the Democratic trap door that will "disappear" the progressive agenda EVERY time once these knaves gain a majority in Congress.
This is a use of the word "militancy" that only Orwell could love.
I'm going to put put a fine point on it:
"I would say that the betrayals of this administration and this Congress are not so much the fault of Obama and the Democrats in Congress.."
Sheer idiocy and an Orwellian-level Big Lie. The betrayals of this administration and Congress are 100% their own fault. The word "betrayal" in fact can only make any sense in this context.
We did "tell you so." I proudly voted for Nader in 2008, 2004 and 2000 because all of us who are bright enough to know what the Dems are about were 100% right in judging their character and the Dem supporters have been 100% wrong, time and time again, over and over, on every issue. Obama has actually been worse than I even imgained, which is horrifying.
People are dying in war and from lacking access to healthcare while you wait for the Dems to act like people they don't even pretend to be.
Nothing will ever change until the Dem apologists and loyalists admit that the third party/Green/Nader/McKinney etc etc people have been 100% right about the rotten nature of the Dems and their total unwillingness and inability to be reformed.
Finally, do you actually live in Philadelphia? I do, and it kinda irks me to see the tagline "Philadelphia-based journalist" time after time when I get the impression you actually live in an upmarket suburb...
Card check was a bad idea in any case. But it looks as if the Dem's and Obama are setting up to betray the American workers and even the unions they so favor by bringing amnesty or legal status for illegal exploited workers up again. Though the union in question here will not help the cheap labor lobby by accepting illegal immigrants as members, so they may not be favored.
You can get an easy example of what it means by by the raid on the Smithfield Plant in Tar Heel, N.C. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE raid drastically changed the demographics of the plant, shifting from a mostly illegal Hispanic workforce to a legal African American workforce. The plant’s workers were able to unionize in the aftermath, something the previous workforce had failed to do twice prior to the raid.
We need a new government - without Corporate 'Personhood'
The Democrats failed one of their long-time paying constituents, organized labor. I think it's very important to point out that U.S. labor unions do contribute money to the Democratic party.
In contrast, nonprofits and citizens are usually just sending letters to Congress, although some individuals may contribute money to the Democratic Party. These folks haven't been doing enough, according to Dave Lindorff, although how would he know?
My point is that the Democratic Party will not even represent paying constituents if they fall outside of the party's corporate mandate. The Democratic Party is not what most Democratic voters think it to be. It's the other side of the Business Party with the Republicans.
So, forget all of that talk about trying to lobby the Democratic Party. It will never accede to the demands of people, no matter how many letters, protests and campaign contributions. This case is just another example where Lindorff is wrong on that point. What better test than organized labor, which puts out the bucks, losing on this issue?
Loyal Dems! Can you remember this when election time swings round again? Alas, you won't. You'll pull the handle for the Dems, expecting a different result.
-TIA
It gets really tiresome hearing Lindorff's strained rationalizations for his Democratic Party recidivism. His problem is that he always knows what knaves the Democrats are retroactively, AFTER the election--so he can make a "cottage industry" of getting paid to write indignant articles huffing about the Dems' manifold betrayals--but somehow he undergoes spasms of temporary amnesia just BEFORE each election, when he expects the corporate-owned Dems (see opensecrets.org for copious documentation) to turn on their paymasters, find a conscience, and miraculously morph into champions of the little man.
Lindorff displays his patented naivete when he points to Obama's pre-electoral support of EFCA. Oh, really? And in 2003 he came out for single payer, too! And before 2008 Waxman and Rangel were cosponsors of HR676. But as soon as these rogues become the majority, their support of these progessive measures magically evaporates! Waxman and Rangel and Obama have done their best to bury the single-payer plan they once professed to support.
This is the standard shell game--gull the suckers with gale-force winds of progressive rhetoric when you're out of power, and then cry "compromise" and "realism" and "sorry, Charlie" when you're in power. It's the oldest ruse in town, and Lindorff and his ilk fall for it time after time.
There's a simple calculus of probabilities here: no matter how often Lindorff lectures us on the improbability of a progressive third party reaching a critical mass, it is IMPOSSIBLE that a party that has been a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America for a quarter century (at least) will EVER have any other project than torpedoing the progressive agenda in concert with their "bad-cop" Republican buddies on the other side of the aisle.
An improbability is ALWAYS a better bet than an impossibility. Except if you're of the mindset of Lindorff and his ilk, who maintain their more mainstream writing and lecture fees through "responsible" support for the Democrats at election time, combined with more leftish writing and lecture fees for their inter-electoral denunciations of the betrayals of these same Democrats.
Like the cynical K-street corporate Dems, Lindorff is quite the sharpie when it comes to playing both sides of the aisle.
Well said...!
vanmungo: "There's a simple calculus of probabilities here: no matter how often Lindorff lectures us on the improbability of a progressive third party reaching a critical mass, it is IMPOSSIBLE that a party that has been a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America for a quarter century (at least) will EVER have any other project than torpedoing the progressive agenda in concert with their "bad-cop" Republican buddies on the other side of the aisle."
Well said, indeed, so much so I've made this paragraph my "quote of the day" in my daily posting of progressive "news." http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ Not an insignificant distinction, in that I survey many quotes, good and bad, everyday in the course of these postings.
Ya' mean the quoted person of the day doesn't even get a gift coupon for Dunkin' Donuts?
Oh, well--just the personal glory is enough.
Thanks for the nod.
Yours in struggle,
Van
The other day when Mr. Lindorff wrote a similar article, someone brought up the fact that Lindorff often writes in a manner that attempts to misdirect our anger away from the establishment and onto fighting ourselves. In response, Lindorff wrote a very vulgar and obscene response to that poor man. That poor man has already put up with enough rightwing kooks in his state and the last thing he needs is more letdowns. David Lindorff needs to apologize to that man he insulted. Lindorff can pretend that he feels betrayed by the Democratic Party and yet he'll admit to going out on a limb and supporting it yet again even if they support the same Republican policies. Talk about sheer hypocrisy !
PS: The article I was referring to was
Published on Friday, July 10, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
With Friends Like These: Wal-Mart, Health 'Reform’ and Obama’s 'Public Option’
by Dave Lindorff
Carla, I am going to assume that I was the poor man you referred to. It's ok and I'm glad that you too understood as had some others who found DL's response very offensive as well. I'm not the least surprised by fellows like him. I stumbled across ruthless Obama cultists similar to DL and some of them make even DL look nice in pale comparison when they side with the rightwing hicks shouting "commie" in my face. Having read through Mr. Lindorff's historical articles and his comments on this site, I do not find him to be a trustworthy progressive. He can have the corrupt Democrats in my state of LA such as Breaux, Landruin, Blanco, Jefferson, etc ... In fact, I don't really want an apology from DL. Just as he gave me the middle finger, I shall return him the same.
Bennett Miller
Shreveport, LA
It is class warfare. It is difficult for USAers to accept because they were raised in the mistaken belief that the USA is a classless society, and that everyone is "in it together".
The fact is the overseer class is being squeezed by the ruling class, and as shit flows downhill, the working class takes another beating.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
Just curious, was Bush responsible for what he did or was that my fault too? Should I have lobbied harder..?
this is just one more case of democrats lying thru their
teeth.i was a shop steward at ups and worked there for 12 yrs.
in 1996 ron carey and the teamsters and the afl cio gave
the dims 38 mil and clinton promised all kinds of help after
the election.in 1997 we went on a national strike and slick
willie fucked us in a number of ways like ordering ron to
make us go back and work while in arbitration. ron declined
we stepped up the pressure through national media pressure.
right after the new contract ron called out walmart k mart
and other major retail chains who had no protections for their
workers. ron came back to nyc and told that they where going
to come efter him and get him out of the and maybe into a jail cell if they could swing it.that fascist from mich.
pete hoehkestra made up some bogus charges that ron was
washing money in the campaign after taking it from people
they should have watched closer. clinton didn't lift a finger
to help. ron had three separate trials to keep himself out
of prison was aqquitted in all three but spent damn near all
his money and money we gave to his defense fund hoffa
kicked ron out of the teamsters because he knew he couldn't
win at the ballot box. ron was the strongest toughest union
president i've ever saw and the straightest one well! ron
died in febuary of this year and we miss him terribly!
how this tough five foot three irish american from beat
the
ass off of ups was a thing of beauty.nicest compliment i recieved there was a fellow steward listening to my plan to
give ups a really really good fucking and way that hadn't used
before.my fellow steward said thats very evil and ron carey would have loved it.couldn't get a better compliment ever.