Working Life's ongoing special section devoted to holding the Cafta Fifteen accountable.
Buy the Wal-Mart documentary for $12.95
« Why Are Democrats Working For Wal-Mart? | Main | The Latest On CA Props »
November 03, 2005
The CBC and Wal-Mart
My colleague David Sirota (who writes a terrific blog) passed on a couple of useful background pieces from the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill explaining why so many members of the Congressional Black Caucus seem to be cozy with Wal-Mart.
First, the first piece recounts the furor caused by a letter sent by Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of SEIU and chair of the Change To Win federation (though her CTW position didn't exist at the time), to the CBC. Burger raised concerns about the CBC's open-door policy to Wal-Mart. The CBC didn't take kindly to the letter. But, this quote from Rep. Al Wynn (D-MD) kind of summed up the problem: “We have no permanent friends, no permanent allies, only permanent interest.”
Second, two months later, The Hill ran a piece describing a move by the Chamber of Commerce to cuddle up with the CBC. In the piece, Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), a CBC member who as I pointed out yesterday voted against a House amendment that targeted Wal-Mart, says about a meeting with the Chamber, "I hope that this meeting will be a template for future interactions between the CBC and the business community. The CBC is not monolithic. It shouldn’t be written off. There are some members of the CBC who have been very interested in the business agenda.”
Hmmmm....
And a few folks were wondering how to contact the AFL-CIO and Change To Win to see if they might adopt suggestions I made to pressure the Democratic Party to stop elected party officials or operatives from romancing Wal-Mart (I'd use words stronger than "romancing" but this a family blog, no?). Best I can suggest is to call John Sweeney at 202-637-5000 and Anna Burger at 202-898-3200.
I'll reprint the suggestions here (but people might have better ones so throw those out to the respective labor leaders):
1. The Change To Win Coalition and the AFL-CIO should jointly send a letter to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer (head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) and Rahm Emanuel (head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) demanding that no work be given to any Democratic operative or consulting firm that shills for Wal-Mart. If the party refuses to at least dry up the money for Wal-Mart shills, then, the two Federations should pledge not to send a single dollar to any campaign committee.
2. Both Federations should also write to every member of Congress declaring that any Democrat receiving Wal-Mart money can kiss any labor donations or labor support good-bye.
3. Both Federations should, then, send a letter to every supposed Democratic campaign consultant and make it clear: you work for us OR you work for Wal-Mart. You can't do both.
November 3, 2005 in Wal-Mart | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b76269e200d8345e9c4753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The CBC and Wal-Mart:
Comments
The Wal Mart problem will not be solved in Washington, DC.
Like virtually every other issue facing Labor - the battle will be won or lost IN THE STREETS.
CJ
Posted by: cj | Nov 3, 2005 8:52:34 AM
i'd like to see a simple ultimatum made to wal-mart that can then be used to define any public campaign.
1. raise wages to a level pegged to area median incomes
2. an industry leading health plan for workers and their families
3. card check neutrality for organizing drives
4. reform of their international labor practices
5. committment to open at least 2/3 of future new stores to open in disinvested urban areas (provided that the first 3 points are adopted) rather than on the urban fringe
then let the beast defend its profits against these simple demands that will yield benefits for communities and workers.
al
Posted by: alex in SF | Nov 3, 2005 9:21:52 AM
Let's be blunt. Wal-Mart figured this whole mess out. The economy for workers is in a downward spiral. That meant average or poor working families would shop purely on price point. Wal-Marts niche was low prices.
Add to the equation their willingness/eagerness to locate in communities where wages were low and unemployment was high and you found a relationship waiting to happen. Black leaders saw them as jobs...albeit bad paying jobs with limited benefits.
Hell, a couple of years back they were awarded some kind of honor as being good to black workers. Sadly their PR machine is far better than anything institutionalized labor could drum up.
As bad as Wal-Mart is, they are good at what they do. If we are ever to have any hope to change that, we need to become aggressive in providing workers (and leaders and politicians) the vision labor has is better than what crappy employers are offering. That hasn't happened to date, hence the bailout from many of the democrats (with friends like this who needs enemies).
Posted by: Bill Pearson | Nov 3, 2005 10:20:43 AM
It seems to me that if CtW, the AFL-CIO, or anyone else wants to get CBC members to stop cosying up to Wal-Mart, they're going to have to go directly to the constituencies of these Reps, talk to community leaders and allies on whom they rely, and get them on board with the "Dump Wal-Mart" (and, possibly, Dump the Chamber) campaigns. If Davis's constituents think it's fine for him to do what he's doing, he really has no reason at all to care what Anna Burger or John Sweeney thinks about it.
The same goes for letters to the DNC. Obviously, Labor can threaten to pull its own money and direct support, which is critical. But the real power is always in holding these folks accountable from the grassroots. All of which is just another argument for moving forward aggressively with public campaigns against Wal-Mart. The politicians will respect Labor Leaders to the extent that they believe that they actually lead the public.
Posted by: bigfall | Nov 3, 2005 10:27:03 AM
The phrase “We have no permanent friends, no permanent allies, only permanent interest.” is also a favorite of Andy Stern.
Posted by: joeblowfromkokomo | Nov 3, 2005 3:58:31 PM
This goes back to what I said in my previous post: When you have a Democratic Party that cobbles together coalitions instead of presenting a broad-based economic platform that appeals to middle-working class people regardless of race, ethnic group, gender, age, sexual orientation, etc and couple it with redistricting that makes most Congressional seats uncompetitive, what do you expect? If you are winning as a result of being a "leader" representing your specific interest group instead of a broad record of economic justice, why not accept all sort of "support"? Is it really gonna HURT you?
Posted by: D Flinchum | Nov 3, 2005 4:22:25 PM
The phrase “We have no permanent friends, no permanent allies, only permanent interest.” is also a favorite of Andy Stern.
It's a perfectly good guiding principle as long as the interests are those of your constituents and not yourself.
Posted by: eRobin | Nov 3, 2005 11:18:55 PM
Jonathan - another thing we as trade unionists should do is build a real political alternative to the Democratic Party. The Wal-Mart 22 joins the CAFTA 15 and the Bill Clinton 1 (hellllllooooo, NAFTA) as just the latest examples of the Democrats taking money from labor with one hand then slapping us across the face with the other.
Many of us -- in addition to working through our unions -- are involved in buildng the Labor Party and have been for 10 years now. Working people need an independent political party of our own -- just like working folks in most other countries. Join us, www.thelaborparty.org
Posted by: mark | Nov 8, 2005 4:32:23 PM
i love walmart!
Posted by: walmart homepage | Aug 13, 2007 12:21:56 AM
