Sirota & WSJ Agree: Dems Not Serious on Labor Law Reform
Yesterday lefty analyst David Sirota argued that Dems had brought up the Employee Free Choice Act in a perfunctory manner that doomed it to fail in the face of a Senate filibuster. For bills Dems seriously want to pass, they attach it to must-pass legislation, such as when they attached the minimum wage to the Iraq funding bill.
Well, the rightwing Wall Street Journal editoral page agrees with Sirota, writing today that the Dems were obviously not serious in wanting to pass the bill:
The way the vote was managed says a lot about how little Democrats really wanted to debate this "card check" legislation in public...so it's not surprising that Democrats staged their losing vote the same day as a key immigration vote that was certain to get far more public attention. Democrats also did little PR work, and the vote itself had a ritual quality to it, like some of those Republican votes on cultural issues when Tom DeLay was House Majority Leader: Hold a largely symbolic vote, check off a box to pay off your election supporters, and move on to something that most Americans might even care about.
Now that said, I personally doubt that even if the Dems made labor law reform a priority, they could pass it, since the corporate Right would pull out every stop necessary, including shutting down the government if need be, to stop labor law reform. As the WSJ said, most business lobbies declared the bill their top measure of what Senators they would fund for reelection, so they indicated their seriousness.
And historically, it's worth understanding how dedicated the rightwing has been to blocking labor law reform. In the 1960s, the last high point of liberal power, the rightwing was unable to block the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965 and 1968 or stop the passage of the 1965 Education bill, Medicaid, Medicare, or a range of other enviro and anti-poverty laws. But they did filibuster and block labor law reforms from that decade, just as they filibustered labor law reform approved by the House in the 1970s and in 1994.
This may have been a pro forma vote on labor law reform, but that's only because a serious vote would require all out warfare by the Dems. Since a revival of the union movement is viewed correctly by the corporate right as the most dangerous threat to their political power, the Dems should take on that battle. But sadly, they are so cowed by the prospect of actually fighting toe-to-toe with the corporate lobbies that these kinds of wimpering votes on labor law reform are about all we can expect.
Comments (19)
I sure hope the Dems realize they're the majority party before they become the minority party again.
Sometimes the way the Dems act you'd think we lost seats in 2006.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 27, 2007 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, as David said, the Democrats could have attached this bill to must-pass legislation for the Republicans. That is exactly the Democrats did with the minimum wage bill by attaching it to the Iraq funding legislation, despite every Republican attempt to sink the minimum wage increase.
The Democratic leadership certainly could have attached the EFCA to must-pass legislation for the Republicans as well, but chose not too. As such, they doomed this legislation for failure to pass Congress and failure to get signed by the President.
It is abundantly clear that the Democrats who set up and pushed the vote on the EFCA as a standalone bill wanted it to fail. This was not a lack of strategy on the Democrat's part, but the clear goal that they had in mind all along.
These Democrats in Washington wanted to do just enough work to make it look like they cared about unions and workers.
These Democrats in Washington did not want to pass this bill and have to explain to their corporate masters that they succeeded in making it pass.
These Democrats in Washington did not want to risk their corporate funding, so they did a Kabuki dance for their uninformed and gullible constituents. And it worked! This article and others like it blaming the Republicans for this failure is the evidence.
June 27, 2007 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me restate my point-- there is no "must pass" legislation more important to the corporate right than blocking labor law reform. Name the priority, from the Iraq War to corporate subsidies, and the corporate rightwing would rather see those "must pass" bills go down in flames than allow this bill to pass.
The Dems should have attached EFCA to such bills just to demonstrate the anti-union bias of the rightwing, but be assured that no bill would make it past a filibuster.
What's is always remarkable to me is that a bill the rightwing hates so much and is such a priority for them gets so little attention by most progressives relative to so many other issues.
June 27, 2007 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm willing to be more charitable to the Dems. They know that they can't pass any progressive legislation in the next two years. Even if they could get it through congress Bush would veto it.
So what they are doing is setting up a long public record of progressive things that the Repubs have blocked. On this bill the vote was recorded and you can be sure that the unions will be using that fact in the district of each senator who voted against it that is up for re-election.
If they continue at this for awhile they will have enough hot button items that the Repubs blocked to satisfy every niche community they are trying to reach.
Recent polls have shown that the public is once again more favorably inclined towards unions (something like 60%) so the Repub positions are going to seem increasing out of step with most people.
What I don't understand is the Repub strategy. Are they in such thrall to their corporate sponsors that they are willing to risk losing elections rather than cross them?
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
June 27, 2007 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nathan:
Excellent post.
I vividly recall the failure of the Democrats to pass labor law reform in 1978. That far-reaching proposed legislation fell victim to a Senate filibuster, notwithstanding a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate, and Jimmy Carter in the White House.
From my perspective as a union attorney, I think that opposition of the right wing is exacerbated by the fact that a large segment of the Democratic coalition consists of folks who simply don't appreciate the importance of unions. That's not a shot at anyone or any constituency in particular, but I honestly think that there's a huge segment of the liberal commmunity that is, at best, indifferent to organized labor and, at worst, downright hostile to it. I wish I had a nickel for every time I've gotten a snide remark about concrete shoes or something like that from a so-called progressive when I've mentioned what I do for a living.
I think the result is that there are many in Congress who see no need to waste political capital by providing more than lip service to legislation like Free Choice.
Bruce
June 27, 2007 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
This debate is pointless and Sirota's commentary is typical of a circular firing squad that benefits only the onlooking Republicans.
Democrats just don't have the numbers; furthermore the fight over Iraq is coming up and they better pick the fight that has better chances and is more urgent.
June 27, 2007 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Res ipsa loquitur.
I am unwilling to concede that a Democratic Congress is unable to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time!
June 27, 2007 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Consider the sources.
Both the WSJ editorial page and David Sirota are avid sh*t flingers. Once in a while something sticks to the wall. It's a matter of odds, really. Now that they somehow end up in agreement, I think it's unfortunate to conclude they must be on to something.
Often in statistical studies we discard the top and bottom of responses in order to improve the quality of reporting. I'm inclined to use this approach in this case.
/c
In the blogosphere every one is an expert, so no one is an expert.
June 27, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wimps!
June 27, 2007 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
deleted
June 27, 2007 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
deleted
June 27, 2007 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
They didn't fight the Iraq fight earlier this year and they won't fight it in the fall. They won't fight for anything and more important they won't fight for anyone -- and THAT is why they don't have the numbers now and aren't likely to get them anytime soon.
You fight FIRST and you EARN the numbers. The Republicans figured that out and they never stop fighting and they never give an inch.
June 27, 2007 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So what they are doing is setting up a long public record of progressive things that the Repubs have blocked. "
That would be a plan, if they executed it. Instead, they're setting up a long public record of progressive things that Democrats have surrendered on without a fight.
June 27, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The minimum wage bill was MORE hated than labor law reform. Yet, the Democratic leadership was able to attach that to a must-pass bill for the Republicans that they accepted and Bush signed.
You are flat-out wrong and my original points still stand.
June 27, 2007 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. When Bush vetoed the first Iraq spending bill with timetables attached, the Democratic leadership should have sent Bush back the exact same bill with the exact same timetables. Instead, our leadership abdicated their responsibility to their constituents and to our troops by rolling over and giving Bush the bill that he wanted all along.
By rolling over, the Democratic leadership signaled that they would roll over for every other bill less important than that one. With the Iraq spending bill likely to be the most important legislation to come up over the next two years, we're not likely to see any good legislation come from this Congress.
June 27, 2007 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
speaking of out of step...
It seems even the Choir is starting to get a glimpse of what following their leaders into '08 will look like.
June 27, 2007 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who has drafted minimum wage laws that were enacted into law, I say with confidence that while sectors of the business community don't like minimum wage increases, the broad apparatus of the business lobbies will devote far more resources, more than any other issue if necessary, to defeat labor law reforms.
That has been true for seventy years, which is why we have had multiple increases in the minimum wage since it was enacted in the 1930s, but labor law has been either made worse or improvements have been blocked by filibuster.
June 28, 2007 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, bury your head in the sand. Truth is so ugly.
June 28, 2007 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a life long Democrat, I'm here to tell you that the Democrats have simply become the other side of the same coin. For this, we can thank Bill Clinton and the DLC. Clinton gave us NAFTA, media consolidation, and welfare reform on babies while leaving corporate welfare untouched. Now, we have Kennedy pushing increases in guest workers/H-1b. Rangel is off negotiating secret trade deals. Obey is screaming at war moms and pushing increases in abstinence only programs. And last but not least, the Dems caved on the war. If anybody thinks they are going to make Cheney comply with subpoenas or anything else, I have a bridge to sell this. This Democratic Party is weak, corrupt, corporate owned, and making FDR spin in his grave. Hell no. They didn't give one damn if the Employee Free Choice Act passed. Afterall. They wouldn't want those damn unions getting uppity again, would they. We need to take out the Democratic Party and start over from scratch.
June 28, 2007 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink