The Times Attacks Wall Street on Pensions

    Really good story in today's New York Times' Sunday Business Section called "How Wall Street Wrecked United's Pension" (registration required). Written by Mary Williams Walsh (who, I think, has done really good reporting on the attack on pensions), the piece shows how United's pension fund money managers collected about $125 million in fees over the past five years. They invested money in very high-risk, high-return stocks: "At United, this freewheeling approach gave rise to investments in junk bonds, dot-coms and even what appears to be an energy venture in Albania." But, now, the United workers are paying the price for those investments--the pensions have been jettisoned by the airline and workers just are not going to see the kind of money they had planned for.

    For some time, I've felt that the pension fund scandals are a place to build a movement against corporations. Just think about the United workers: a sizable chunk of the workers are pilots, who were paid very well and typically voted Republican. But, there is a rage among tens of thousands of workers that they played by the rules, gave up compensation during their working years for something better down the road and, then, found that that promise could vanish with the stroke of a federal bankruptcy judge's pen.

Oh, Maybe A Bit More...

    And here from the political newsletter Hotline....note the Republicans who voted No.

CAFTA: I'll Take That De-CAFTAnated       

A "sharply divided" House early 7/28 "passed a hard-fought Central American trade agreement that had become one of the year's biggest political fights." The victory was "a huge one" for Pres. Bush and GOPers, "whose legislative agenda could have been jeopardized if it had become the first failed trade agreement in four decades." After over two hours of debate, the House passed it 217-215, "generally beyond party lines." The SEN "passed it last month by a vote of 54-45, and the House vote secures its success."       

    Even after "intense lobbying" by the WH, it wasn't "clear that CAFTA would pass." Many members "had refused to commit either way. 27 GOPers "voted against it." 15 Dems "voted for it." The "day began with Bush making a rare appearance" on the Hill "to try to cajole" GOPers "to support CAFTA." VP Cheney "stayed for the day and spoke to several of the undecided" GOPers (Kumar, St. Petersburg Times, 7/28).

     "In the spirit of tying everything" to nat'l security and "the spread of democracy, Bush in his statement said the country has 'a moral obligation and a vital national security interest in helping the democracies of Central America and the Dominican Republic succeed.'" Speaker Dennis Hastert said there's "nothing like a stable society to fight terrorism and strengthen democracy." Dems "call the deal a job killer" (NBC's First Read, 7/28).

Even Bush's Dog Was Whipping This Vote

      Much of the GOP "whip effort focused on recalcitrant members from import-battered industrial" CDs, like Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH). Ney: "I've met everybody including the president's new dog, everybody from the dog on up." Prior to the CAFTA vote, "the House approved, 255-168, a package of measures aimed at prodding China to abide by trade rules," which some Reps like Small Business chair/Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-IL) "said gave them the confidence to throw their support behind CAFTA" (Vaughan/Davis, CongressDaily, 7/28).       

    Some GOP members "balked at supporting the pact because it would allow for additional sugar imports from the Latin American member nations." But the admin "appears to have few concessions to the sugar lobby. Commerce Secy Carlos Gutierrez: "We ... frankly don't believe that it is fair to hold up an agreement... for one industry that has a concern that we do not believe is grounded" (Bachelet, Miami Herald, 7/28).

Trading Faces

      During the debate, "which lasted 2 1/2 hours, the bitterness" of the Dems' opposition "shone through in condemnations such as that" by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): "CAFTA is for multinational companies who want to make a profit by shutting plants in the United States and moving to places with cheap labor." Dems and unions "fear" approval of the "this accord will signal that free-trade deals are possible with almost any country, no matter how low its wages or how inadequate its labor protections." Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi "warned that the political consequences will come back to haunt Bush" (Blustein/Allen, Washington Post, 7/28).

Bet There're Some Tired Eyes On The Hill Today

CAFTA, HR 3045, passed at 12:03 am on 7/28, 217 votes to 215. Below is a breakdown of those members that bucked the party line and a few members that have districts with high job-loss/ high blue-collar populations.

AYES Bean (D-IL 08); Cooper (D-TN 05); Cuellar (D-TX 28);Dicks (D-WA 06) ; Hinojosa (D-TX 15); Jefferson (D-LA 02); Matheson (D-UT 02); Meeks (D-NY 06); Moore (D-KS 03) ; Moran (D-VA 08);  Ortiz (D-TX 27); Skelton (D-MO 04); Snyder, (D-AK 02); Tanner (D-TN 08); Towns (D-NY 10)

NOES Boustany (R-LA 07); Capito (R-WV 02); Coble (R-NC 06); Cubin (R-WY AL); Foxx (R-NC 05); Garrett (R-NJ 05); Goode (R-VA 05); Gutknecht (R-MN 01); Hostettler (R-IN 08); Hunter (R-CA 52); Jindal (R-LA 01) ; Jones (R-NC 03); LoBiondo (R-NJ 02); Mack (R-FL 14); McCotter (R-MI 11); McHenry (R-NC 10); McHugh (R-NY 23); Miller (R-MI 10); Ney (R-OH 18); Norwood (R-GA 09); Otter (R-ID 01); Paul (R-TX 14); Rehberg (R-MT AL);  Simmons (R-CT 02); Simpson (R-ID 02); Smith (R-NJ 04); Tancredo (R-CO 06)

UPDATE: As some of you eagle-eyes noticed, the above lists were off--my fault for taking this as is and pasting it without checking the NOEs. But, it should be right now.

That's Some Seriously, Seriously Bad Luck (Or Is It Bad Spin?)       Though the recorded vote on CAFTA that can be found at thomas.loc.gov shows Rep. Charlie Taylor (R-NC 11) as "Not Voting" on CAFTA, his office claims otherwise. They say Taylor voted no, but due to a technical error, he was recorded into the system as "Not Voting." His office is currently trying to fix the error and will release a statement later today, according his district office spokesperson Deborah Potter (Hotline reporting, 7/28).

Flippity-Flop-Flop-Flop-erooo!

      From MSNBC.com 7/24, But Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC 08), "whose district includes Cabarrus, Rowan and Catawba counties, will vote against CAFTA." Hayes, in reference the the '03 bankruptcy of Pillowtex, "which caused the largest layoff" in NC history: "When I drive through Kannapolis now, it's a ghost town. A lot of people, rightfully so, think it's because of flawed trade policy. There needs to be a clear-cut case that (CAFTA) is going to bring jobs and grow the economy. CAFTA does not make that case" (7/24).       

  As of 7/27 CongressDaily reports Hayes would be a "No" vote (CongressDaily, 7/27). "In the end a 40-minute delay in the vote was broken after" GOP leaders convinced Hayes of "to switch his vote to yes" (Drajem, Bloomberg, 7/28).

A Bit More About the CAFTA 15

    A friend, deeply involved in the issue of CAFTA (who can't be named because of the very senior position this person holds in the labor movement), writes: "just so you have some perspective here: about 100 Dems voted for NAFTA, about 70 on PNTR [Permanent Normal Trading Relations, for China], about 23 on fast track in 2001, and 15 on CAFTA." 

    And more: "Several Democrats have lost seats over trade: Tom Sawyer in Ohio, Matt Martinez in Calif (in a primary challenge by Hilda Solis, who has been fabulous on trade). We have told many Democrats--as far as we know, no one has ever lost a seat for being with us on trade, but several have lost for being wrong."

    Yes, it's great that fewer Democrats are voting for these deals--apparently, many more see through the promises of jobs and prosperity, and the phony "side agreements" or "labor provisions." But, all the more reason to keep the pressure on.

    My friend also points out something I agree with 100 percent: "This could be a great opportunity to go after some vulnerable Republicans, especially in places like Pennsylvania and North Carolina, who had no business voting for CAFTA. Let's use this crappy vote to take back the House. Robin Hayes [Republican of North Caroline] is a great starting point. This profile in courage was the deciding wrong vote on fast track in 2001 as well. He has been telling people publicly for months he'd vote no on CAFTA, and he was the one who turned at midnight."

    Yes, agreed (I know, I've been critical of labor's role in electoral politics but, if unions are going to play, I'm for hardball). But, I think what this points to is a need for Democrats to be able to tell the story to voters about why so-called "free trade" is bad for their futures. And in order for that story to have some resonance (and not have Republicans point to pro-CAFTA Democrats), it has to be seen as not politically convenient to target pro-CAFTA Republicans but leave pro-CAFTA Democrats alone--at least from the labor movement's perspective.

UFCW Redux and Who's Next?

    Still trying to catch up the brain from a week of not enough sleep so this weekend my ramblings might come a little later in the a.m.--and, if that isn't enough, I have to crank out a little opus on the convention for New Labor Forum...by Monday...

    First, a welcome to Reece--I'm always encouraging new posters to wade in...it helps broaden the debate and brings in new prespectives. So far, the tone has been generally respectful so c'mon in the water's fine.

    Just to answer a few points from yesterday's post on the UFCW's joining the emerging new Federation (and you can read UFCW President Joe Hansen's statement or read the short piece today by Steven Greenhouse in The New York Times--registration required)--

    Award for better math to Anon for noting that, yes, the Federation has now lost one-fifth of its projected budget, not one-quarter...math was never by strong suit, especially after averaging three hours of sleep a night for a week. Still, a huge hit--and likely to get bigger as the leaves start turning in the Fall.

    A minor point but Steve is right--I never said the Teamsters wouldn't leave. I was just being cautious about the question of "when"--partly because the Teamsters were debating it internally. I think I also said many times the UFCW would leave by the end of the week but I won't brag about that...I just had more concrete info. And, by the way, I'm always prepared (as I have in two instances) to publish right on the front page (as opposed to the mainstream media) corrections of any documented mistakes...but I'm going to set a standard that you cannot be anonymous for that. Bring it on.

    I don't think the Wal-Mart campaign gets hurt. What's going to be interesting is: what is the AFL-CIO's commitment on Wal-Mart now that the UFCW is gone? You can check this out but, before SEIU and the UFCW started talking about a joint campaign on Wal-Mart in May 2004, I don't think you can find much about that idea in materials or rhetoric coming from the Federation. Then, boom, challenged by others, almost every speech contained a reference to Wal-Mart.

    And "not an AFSCME staffer" is right and I will give credit: the Federation did step up to the plate, committing a million bucks and hiring a staffer, Ellen Moran, to coordinate its work. In particular, the AFL-CIO was interested in playing a role in the formation of a non-union workers association--that's the project my good friend and crack organizer Wade Rathke is all over.

    A digression: this is an interesting example to make a larger point. SEIU and the UFCW forced the Federation to respond on Wal-Mart--I chuckled when the bidding kept going higher, with Stern saying back when that the AFL-CIO should create a $25 million fund to fight Wal-Mart...and John Sweeney saying that $25 million might not be enough (damn, I wish we owned a money printing press...which the Fed could sure these days). But...there's nothing wrong in being goaded into action. And I still believe that the creation of the Change To Win coalition and the disaffiliations that are rocking the institution might not be pleasant for the AFL-CIO--but ultimately might prove its salvation if it shocks it into a make-over and rejuvenation.

    Back to our Wal-Mart saga: Well, soon after the AFL-CIO Executive Council met in Vegas back in March, Ellen quit to go work for Emily's List. I think she had a bad feeling about her job security--no one really could tell what role the AFL-CIO would want to play once the dust settled after the convention.

    Now, it seems to me to be a tough choice. Given the disaffiliation of the UFCW and the looming budget disaster, does the AFL-CIO step back from the Wal-Mart campaign? Or has it put out so much anti-Walmart rhetoric out there (not to mention printed up all those cool bumperstickers and less-cool propoganda) that it has no choice to stay with it? I mean, a logical conclusion might be that the AFL-CIO and its remaining affiliates have plenty of big honker targets out there so why mess with Wal-Mart.

    And, who knows, I had heard rumors--and it is a possibility--that the Teamsters and UFCW might end up merging. The combo makes sense: the stuff getting to grocery stores and other retails outlets comes in on trucks.

    So, who goes next? I think UNITE HERE will leave as soon as it resolves a significant organizing issue. I've been told what that is in confidence but asked not to write about it. The Amalgamated Bank issue is significant but I don't think that's what's holding back the disaffiliation (I mean, it still will be the only labor bank. Do you think the disaffiliated unions are going to tell all its members to stop using Cingular Wireless just because CWA has been promoting that company as union-friendly?).

    I sense the Laborers will leave by the Fall, in time for the Change To Win coalition's founding convention on September 27th. But, I'm not 100 percent positive. More when I know for sure.

    Victoria's two comments made me muse on two points as a wrap up to this post. She's right--the past staff cuts were not pretty and were handled badly, in my humble opinion. Let's hope that the next round that is almost certain to come will be handled better. One step might be for Bob Welsh, Sweeney's chief of staff, to actually bring in the Newspaper Guild and OPEIU into the conversation a little earlier and explain the logic of whatever staff reorganization is done.    

    And her other comment made me harken back to an earlier pre-convention post in which I mused about whether the language of the "split" really was overdone. Inside the convention hall on the last day, one comment struck me the most--here, the speaker asserted, is the American labor movement. Well, I think the movement is much bigger than an institution and, certainly, as the number of disaffiliated unions grows, the AFL-CIO may end up a smaller Federation than whatever else is created. Rather than worry about size and exceptionalism, maybe the better course of action is to simply ask: what should we do?

UFCW Out

    The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) has just voted to leave the AFL-CIO. That's no surprise--I had written earlier in the week that they would leave the Federation.

    That mean's the Federation will lose another $7.35 million in per capita taxes. If you add that to the already lost per capita with the disaffiliation of SEIU and the Teamsters, the Federation will lose between $25-$27 million--out of a $126 million budget--meaning a more than a quarter of the budget is gone.

    For several weeks, I have suggested that the budget presented to the Executive Council was not realistic given the clear indication that one or more large affiliates would leave the Federation. I am perplexed that the officers of the Federation would not at least give the delegates a sense of what was to come, though John Sweeney did say, on the last day of the convention that the disaffiliations of SEIU and the Teamsters "will significantly impact" the Federation's finances.

    Obviously, more deep staff cuts are on the horizon. The question will be: where will those staff cuts be made? In the last round of cuts, top managers were spared.

    Having said that, while this is not a happy situation for the Federation, it might force a broader rexamination of the proper role of the Federation. More on that soon.

Now, I'm Into Spanking

    Yesterday, I was advocating big-time punishment. Now, I'm getting more specific--spanking is the road to take with the CAFTA 15--the so-called Democrats who voted for the Central American Free Trade Agreement. I'm still flogging the notion that labor has got to exact a price from the CAFTA 15, and I take up the cause again in the next installment of the TomPaine.com series "Working in America" with a column called "Spanking the CAFTA 15."

    What do you think?

    I did want to spend a minute or two considering the editorial on CAFTA in today's New York Times (discussed in the post below this one), in which the Times attacked this blog. The editorial does the usual nonsense, posing the debate as one between "the benefits of free trade" versus the dangers of "protectionism."

    You see, the editorial writers of The Times all went to college where they probably took an Economics 101 course which taught them about the wonders of free trade as espoused by the theoritician David Ricardo. The problem is that that free trade doesn't exist in the real world, as even some free-trade proponents admit. Global trade has nothing to do with advantages countries have over each other because one has better resources or home-grown skills than another. Global trade is about one thing: corporations, not countries, competing to see how far they can drive down wages.

    The editorial tells readers about the wonders the trade deal will bring to Central America. Funny, the Times ignores the fact that, in virtually every Central American country, there have been mass demonstrations against the deal. I just interviewed Rafael Abreu, the executive secretary of the big union in the Dominican Republic (which is part of the CAFTA deal) and he was pretty clear: the deal will only drive wages down and does very little for workers in the DR (I will bring more of that interview in the future).

    The most amazing, and I thought condescending, part of the editorial comes at the end: "Finally, Cafta will benefit the most underrepresented constituency in America: consumers, particularly the lower-income consumers who find that a 50-cent difference in the price of a T-shirt actually means something."

    It's stunning that The Times would boil down the debate to poorer people wanting a T-shirt for 50 cents less. I worked on some focus groups about peoples' feelings towards Wal-Mart more than a year ago and, guess what, people said the opposite: given the choice, they would be willing to pay a little more if they knew workers would get a slightly better wage.

High Praise: Being Attacked By The Times

    Here I was going about my usual business this morning, flipping through the paper of record, only to find that The New York Times has decided to pick on little 'ole me--and many of you'all who weighed in with your interesting comments in yesterday's debate over the CAFTA 15. I'm pasting the editorial below--see bold. And going back to writing my regular TomPaine.com column, which will hammer the same points.

New York Times Editorial Published: July 29, 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/29/opinion/29fri2.html)

In the wee hours yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement by a sliver of two votes. Fifteen Democrats joined 202 Republicans in voting to open up trade between the United States and El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala and the Dominican Republic. Anyone who believes, as this page does, that the benefits of free trade outweigh those of protectionism should give a pat on the back to the Democrats who chose principle over politics and defied their party's leaders to vote for the trade pact.

Trade votes are always cliffhangers, and Cafta was no exception. The vote, which started just after 11 p.m., took almost an hour as some Republicans, many from textile states, jockeyed over who would be allowed to vote against the bill and save face back home. But the Republicans who voted for Cafta at least did so knowing that they were ensuring for themselves the approval of their party leaders, including President Bush. Many of the Democrats who voted for the pact knew that they were practically guaranteeing themselves a primary fight come next election. Indeed, organized labor was already talking yesterday morning about extracting revenge. "Punish the Cafta 15" was a headline in Working Life, a pro-labor blog.

Labor unions should obviously give their support to anyone they deem fit. But the Cafta 15 deserve respect for their independence and good judgment. Cafta is a modest trade pact, hardly likely to lift the six countries' economies into the 21st century. But it may be enough to lift them into the 20th century by lowering tariffs and helping job growth in a needy region. It should help export growth in America as well. The American Farm Bureau Federation estimated that Cafta could increase United States agricultural exports by nearly $1.5 billion a year; the National Association of Manufacturers said it would add about $1 billion a year to the value of United States exports of manufactured goods.

Finally, Cafta will benefit the most underrepresented constituency in America: consumers, particularly the lower-income consumers who find that a 50-cent difference in the price of a T-shirt actually means something.

Sweeney Gets Tough on CLC Issue

    On the last day of the convention, John Sweeney has issued a three-page letter to all principal officers of state federation and Central Labor Councils. It’s darn tough and gives a sense that the Federation and the disaffiliated unions (SEIU and Teamsters) are headed for confrontations all across the country.

    In introducing the letter, Sweeney has just given a very tough speech. Admitting that the disaffiliation of SEIU and Teamsters “will significantly impact” the Federation’s finances. “We must reject the free rider approach of the disaffiliated unions…We will not allow this Federation to be turned into an open shop operation,” the last comment eliciting a standing ovation.

    To his credit, Sweeney allowed an open mike period to solicit comments from the delegates. Most of the delegate stayed away from any hot-button comments, choosing to praise the Federation for its focus on CLCs.

    But, let’s face it—a war is going to erupt here. One delegate from Monterey County (whose name I didn’t catch) stood up to say that she was an SEIU member—to which people stood up and applauded. “I love my union and I’m very sad that for whatever reason my union choose to disaffiliate but my heart is with SEIU. But my other hear is with my central labor council. I am very very concered about the harsh…letter that I just read. I know it’s not popular but you need to understand that there are rank and file members from the disaffiliated unions out there who will walk away and believe that the AFL-CIO really doesn’t care about them.” A few people applauded but mostly silence followed her comments.

    The letter basically lays down the law (this is an abbreviated excerpt—the full letter to come later today or tomorrow):

1. “Only locals of national unions that are affiliated with the national AFL-CIO may affiliate with or pay per capita (or per capita equivalents) to a state federation or central labor council or participate in its governance. State Federations and central labor councils may not accept per capita payments (or per capita equivalents) from unaffiliated unions.

2. No member of a national union that is unaffiliated with the national AFL-CIO can run for, or serve as a delegate, officer or spokesperson of a state federation or central labor council….

3. No state federation or central labor council may provide access to membership lists to any union that is unaffiliated with the AFL-CIO.

4. Under federal election law, no union that is unaffiliated with the AFL-CIO may participate in the AFL-CIO’s political program to education and mobilize members of AFL-CIO unions in support of pro-working family candidates.

(Note: I’ll provide more content from this discussion later but…gotta run to the airport so I’ll “see you” in a few hours)

Punish the CAFTA 15

    Enough. Enough. Enough. If we ever want to make politicians take us seriously when it comes to important laws touching the lives of workers, we must punish the 15 so-called Democrats who voted for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)--and punish them hard.

    Not a single one of those cowardly 15 should receive a dime more of labor money. Not a single phone call should be made on their behalf. No labor endorsment should grace their re-election literature. They must pay.

    Not just on behalf of American workers. But, on behalf of the millions of workers who live in Central America for whom this is a bad deal, too. If we're going to talk about global solidarity, this is where we can practice it. If we're going to send letters to the Democratic Party and talk tough, we have to follow through.

    So, here is the roll-call of the 15 so-called Democrats, with their office telephone numbers. Print this list out and send it to everybody on your lists:

Melissa Bean, Illinois (8th District): 202-225-3711

Jim Cooper, Tennessee (5th District): 202-225-4311

Norm Dicks, Washington (6th District): 202-225-5916

Henry Cuellar, Texas (28th District): 202-225-1640

Ruben Hinojosa, Texas (15th District): (202) 225-2531

William Jefferson, Louisiana (2nd District): (202) 225-6636

Jim Matheson, Utah (2nd District): (202) 225-3011

Gregory Meeks, New York (6th District): 202-225-3461

Dennis Moore, Kansas (3rd District): (202) 225-2865

Jim Moran, Virginia (8th District): (202) 225-4376

Solomon Ortiz, Texas (27th District): 202-225-7742

Ike Skelton, Missouri (4th District): 202-225-2876

Vic Snyder, Arkansas (2nd District): 202-225-2506

John Tanner, Tennessee (8th District): (202) 225-4714

Edolphus Towns, New York (10th District: (202) 225-5936

    So, here's how to make it real:

1. Today, on the last day of the AFL-CIO convention, delegates should demand that a new resolution pass which states simply (with all the obvious "whereas" stuff): Resolved, no labor resources, financial or human, shall be expended on behalf of the 15 Democrats who voted for CAFTA.

2. Every CLC and State Federation should, at their very next meeting, pass a similar resolution, send the text to the pathetic so-called Democrat and take out an ad in the local newspaper which includes the text of the resolution and the reasoning behind it.

3. Look for people who stand up for workers. Let's find primary opponents to run against every one of the 15 so-called Democrats--knock off just one or two and watch the party tremble...you want to play in politics, it's time to get rough and bloody some noses.

Stop the Presses: 4:38 CDT

    I know this will come as shock but...John Sweeney, Richard Trumka and Linda Chavez-Thompson have just been re-elected without opposition for the positions, respectively, of president, secretary-treasurer and executive vice-president. The suspense killed me.