Labor Ready To Hurt Democrats

    Rep. Melissa Bean from Illinois might vote for CAFTA—but she could face the wrath of labor if she does. As will other Democratic members of Congress who vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement, if a small but growing movement among union presidents takes hold. It’s about time.

    I’ve argued for a long time that we need to be much tougher on Democrats who take checks from unions and get troops on Election Day, and, then, turn around to support corporate legislation like so-called “free trade” agreements. The media has focused on how the current political fight within labor might hurt the Democratic Party. But, hell, the party is about to hurt itself.

    Yesterday, a group of 20 presidents of AFL-CIO unions sent a letter to the leadership of the House, expressing barely concealed anger that several Democratic Party members of Congress appear ready to vote for CAFTA when it comes to a vote, perhaps as early as tomorrow. Giving the letter even more heft, it is signed by a “bi-partisan” group of presidents—meaning presidents from unions on both sides of the internal political struggle.

    The person who organized the letter is Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters who was the most visible, early supporter of John Kerry. To his credit, he could have argued that his members aren’t directly touched by CAFTA. But, he sees this as a huge fight.

    What burns Schaitberger most, as you can see from the letter, is that he and a few other union leaders had just hosted a fundraiser for some of the most vulnerable Democratic members (the so-called “Frontline Candidates”). Here at the AFL-CIO convention in Chicago, in the bowels of the Navy Pier, I spoke to him. “We had just, a week ago, a very few of us initiated a major fundraising effort…to raise money specifically for these ten, highly targeted members that the leadership has asked us to afford special attention and support. We raised $300,000, we maxed out on every one of those members. And, then we find out three days later that two of them appears have indicated are for CAFTA."

    Schaitberger continues: "I said no way. They have the right to cast a vote and make a political decision but the leadership doesn’t have the right to put them in a special category and then ask us for a special effort on our behalf and, then, they are going to go against a core issue of the labor movement. We can no longer give a pass on these issues."

    So, I asked him, will the AFL-CIO finally cut off the spigot for any Democrat who goes south on CAFTA--and perhaps even field primary opponents for those wayward Dems.  “A Democrat who votes for CAFTA, if we haven’t already given them money, will not get a dollar from us. We have to decide how egregious the [behavior is]. I point out Melissa’s (Bean) position, she would not be in this Congress if it were not for the labor movement. And, then, to potentially cast such a crucial vote I think is unconscionable. And I would be able to do whatever it takes to hold them accountable. This is a bright line issue for labor. "

    As he looked at the letter in my hand, he noticed that Rep. Bill Jefferson from Lousiana, was not on the letter but should have been along with Bean, Jim Matheson of Utah and Dennis Moore of Kansas.

    Earlier, Rich Trumka, the Federation’s secretary-treasurer had some pretty strong language, too. “This is a very important issue for us. NAFTA is a failed model and CAFTA is a continuation of that failed model. We will look at very, very, very seriously at anyone who votes for CAFTA. I can’t imagine us supporting anybody who votes for it because it’s so bad.”

    I’ve heard more rumblings a bit over the past few days. Gerry McEntee, the chair of the Federation’s political committee who I’m hoping to speak to later, made a reference to withholding support from legislators who go over to the dark side on CAFTA during the Sweeney rally on Sunday.
    Finally, and this might push people over the edge, I heard that Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is helping round up a few votes for CAFTA. He has told people that because of his leadership position, he can’t vote for the legislation but he’ll round up votes in favor. No surprise here—when Emanuel served a top aide to Bill Clinton, he helped in the push to pass NAFTA.

Comments

[Skipster]

He must have meant Rep. Jeff Jefferson of Louisiana- from New Orleans. Richardson's now Gov of N.M.

[jacob]

All I can say is, About fucking time.

[Alex]

How about Democrats Ready to Hurt Labor?

If the money and manpower of labor can get some of these wafflers on the right page, what can it do besides help the Democrats?

[Jan Cornell]

Amen! I say no more money to ANY politician that voted FOR the bankrupcy bill or to the wonderfully enhanced version of the Patriot Act. ANY politician that votes against regular working Americans for their own special interests. The Democrats that voted WITH the Repugs on the Patriot Act ought to be drawn and quartered. The Dems that give John Roberts a free pass on to the Supreme Court without some very hard questions-$0 for them.
I have begun this tactic in my own little world and when it comes to $----it really wakes folks up and makes them actually THINK about what they are voting for-and that would be us, their constituents. Labor is hanging by a thread and By God if the Dems want us, they are going to have to vote FOR us, not against.

[Carl]

I second Jacob, and everyone in my office who are about to go out and pressure Dave Reichert to vote against CAFTA seconds him as well. About fucking time.

Carl

[Jordan Barab]

It's about time. Labor never did anything to pull support from the six Democratic Senators who voted to repeal OSHA's ergonomics regulation in 2001. Still around in the Senate are Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Max Baucus. (The others were Breaux, Miller and Hollings, all gone now and good riddance.)

And then there were a bunch in the House as well.

[benton]

I'm personally much more flexible about plank walking excercises. I was against "the pledge" for example. Not every issue is one where unions can or should draw a line in the sand with every politician.

But being against the pledge doesn't mean you give people a free ride when it counts for your members. And votes that stripped federal employees of their union rights in the Patriot Act are such an issue. And CAFTA is such an obviously bad trade agreement -- particularly when there are better models out there -- that retribution is justified.

Sometimes there has to be a cost to actions that violate solidarity. I'm going to point out that sometimes that cost comes at your own expense. If Bean loses re election and SEIU is locked out of the CLC, there is a price to pay. A real one.

[unlawflcombatnt]

Democrats voting for CAFTA should be singled out and identified.

Does anyone here have a list, or even partial list of Democratic Congressional representatives who are voting for CAFTA. (Or who are out rounding up support for it, like the one representative previously mentioned.)

If I can get a list, I'll write everyone of them a letter. I'll also post their names on DemocraticUnderground's forum.

I can also post my previous letters here, in case anyone would like to use them to send to Congress.

CAFTA can be defeated, unless a lot of Democratic Congressional representatives sell out. There are a lot of Republicans who are going to vote against it. This is a winable battle. And it's one that we MUST win.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary
http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

______________________
Capitalism cannot function without consumer income. That income arises from the wages of America's workers. Labor wages and consumer income are THE most important factors in our economy. Capitalism cannot survive without them.

The benefits of capital investment are limited by consumers' ability to buy the products of capital investment. Without wage income, and the consumer spending it supports, capitalism will collapse. It is in the best interests of Corporate America to pay workers good wages. Profits are made from SALE of goods, not production. SALE of goods is determined by consumer income, not capital investment.

Investment capital is plentiful at present, but investment "opportunities" are not. Consumer income, consumer spending, and the production demand it creates, are what create investment "opportunities."

America needs more consumer income, not more capital investment. It will help working Americans, as well as Corporate America.

[unlawflcombatnt]

Democrats voting for CAFTA should be singled out and identified.

Does anyone here have a list, or even partial list of Democratic Congressional representatives who are voting for CAFTA? (Or who are out rounding up support for it, like the one representative previously mentioned.)

If I can get a list, I'll write every one of them a letter. I'll also post their names on DemocraticUnderground's forum.

I can also post my previous letters here, in case anyone would like to use them to send to Congress.

CAFTA can be defeated, unless a lot of Democratic Congressional representatives sell out. There are a lot of Republicans who are going to vote against it. This is a winable battle. And it's one that we MUST win.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary
http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

______________________
Capitalism cannot function without consumer income. That income arises from the wages of America's workers. Labor wages and consumer income are THE most important factors in our economy. Capitalism cannot survive without them.

The benefits of capital investment are limited by consumers' ability to buy the products of capital investment. Without wage income, and the consumer spending it supports, capitalism will collapse. It is in the best interests of Corporate America to pay workers good wages. Profits are made from SALE of goods, not production. SALE of goods is determined by consumer income, not capital investment.

Investment capital is plentiful at present, but investment "opportunities" are not. Consumer income, consumer spending, and the production demand it creates, are what create investment "opportunities."

America needs more consumer income, not more capital investment. It will help working Americans, as well as Corporate America.

[unlawflcombatnt]

Here is a copy of a letter I've sent to my homestate Senator, Barbara Boxer, as well as my local Congressman, Ed Royce. I encourage everyone that wants to use this letter to do so. You can use it word-for-word, or paraphrase it. I strongly encourage everyone to write to Congress and express your opposition to CAFTA. Here's my letter:

CAFTA is the latest anti-worker, pro-slavery, "free" trade bill being considered in Congress.This is another bill designed exclusively to facilitate outsourcing of American jobs. The bill is much worse than any of the previous "free" trade bills. The flaws are even more obvious. It is a dishonest attempt by the Bush administration to portray an outsourcing bill as an attempt at "opening up markets." Central American workers are so poor they will NEVER create a market for American goods. Impoverished Central American workers, however, will provide an excellent source of cheap semi-slave labor. This new source of slave-labor will be in direct competition with American labor. The only way American workers will be able to compete is to accept the same slave-labor conditions as their Central American counterparts.

CAFTA is nothing but an extension of the disastrous NAFTA scam. American workers will lose jobs, wages will decline, and 0 new jobs will be created. CAFTA's advocates are 100% aware of this. They are simply lying when they talk about "opening up markets to American goods." In reality, what they really want is to "open up" the American labor market to competition with foreign slave-labor. Don't let Benedict Arnold corporations extend their economic treason any further. Americans must continue to stress Economic Patriotism, and oppose this new outsourcing extension.

George Bush, and his fellow "economic terrorists," continue to espouse outsourcing as being "good for America." It is not. And they know it. It helps a selected few at the expense of the many. This bill is a typical product of today's inhuman corporate greed, and its influence on the legislative process. And outsourcing is the epitome of this corporate greed.

Again, outsourcing is done exclusively so American corporations can use cheap foreign labor. The underlying motivation behind ALL free trade agreements is to enable American corporations to use the unskilled, impoverished, semi-slave labor of other countries. There has never been any real concern about "opening up markets." That is more than just a mistaken concept. It is an outright lie from Bush and the economists that espouse "opening up markets." The minuscule income of these 3rd world countries makes it impossible for them to buy American products. Bush knows this. Mankiw knows this. Snow knows this. The man on the moon knows this. Markets are created by aggregate consumer income, not people. Countries with little aggregate consumer income have minuscule-sized markets. Exporting countries that pay their 11-year old slave laborers $2/day will never, ever buy US products. Those wages don't provide enough consumer income to do so.

Chinese and Indian industries would collapse if they had to depend on their own populations to purchase the bulk of goods and services they produce. Wages and consumer income are too low for them to survive on domestic sales. They depend on the American consumer market, which is created by American wages (and borrowing).

When American industry outsources jobs, it outsources consumer income as well. This is the same income that purchases their products. Loss of jobs also places downward pressure on employed workers' wages. If labor demand decreases, so do wages. If this trend continues, America will be unable to purchase 80% of its own goods, as it currently does. Demand for goods, and the labor to produce them, will decrease further. This will further reduce consumer income and buying power. This is a self-perpetuating cycle, which will result in a continued decrease in DEMAND for American production.

The price reduction on foreign-produced goods does not make up for the income lost. It is simply illogical to think so. If it did compensate, there would be no benefit to outsourcing. Wal-Mart statistics, provided by Wal-Mart, offer some insight. A Wal-Mart spokesperson recently stated that consumers save $600/year purchasing goods from Wal-Mart. He also admitted, however, that Wal-Mart wages were $2/hour lower than those of the average retail sales worker. Here's the math: $2/hr x 40hr/week x 52weeks = $4160 per year less income for a Wal-Mart employee. However, the $4160 is only a small part of the labor income actually lost, because it is confined to retail sales employees only. Nearly 100% of the labor income from production workers is lost, since Wal-Mart buys most of its products from production facilities ouside the U.S. The loss of income by American production workers is even greater. Does $600/year in consumer savings make up for income lost by retail employees and production workers? Of course not. Aggregate consumer income decreases FAR more than prices decrease. The price savings are MUCH less than the amount of labor income lost. The only income increase is in CEO salaries and corporate profits. And that increase is entirely at the expense of the American worker. Increased corporate profits are EXCLUSIVELY from reduction in labor costs. In other words, this profit comes directly out of the pockets of American workers.

American workers are the most highly educated, highly skilled, productive workers on the planet. They produce more goods per hour than any of the workers they are losing their jobs to. But they are not as productive measured in goods per dollar. American workers lack the "skills" to survive on $2/day. We need to begin retraining them to acquire this skill. Our educational system has completely failed us here. And the ability to survive on $2/day is THE most essential job skill in today's market. We definiely need to increase federal funding to teach this "skill."

In reality, the "re-training" mantra is just a cop-out. The solution to outsourcing is not increased worker training. Nor is it increased funding to job-displacement programs. It is not extension of unemployment benefits. The solution to the outsourcing problem is to stop outsourcing. Period. Repeal ALL "free" trade agreements. We have absolutely no need for any "free" trade agreements. We already had free trade before any of these agreements were ever created. NAFTA, FTAA, CAFTA and the others have only one real goal -- to reduce the labor costs by using the slave labor of impoverished countries. This makes American workers compete with the exploited labor of poor countries. American workers then become no more than slaves themselves. Is this the job retraining Bush has in mind?

Economists frequently use the doctrine of "comparative advantage" to justify outsourcing. This doctrine has NO application when used to justify current outsourcing policy. (The comparative advantage doctrine is invalidated by international mobility of capital. This was clearly delineated in Ricardo's initial doctrine.) Yet it's what current administration economists hide behind when defending outsourcing. It's a long, twisted, completely non-applicable concoction, which is designed to disguise the real reasons for outsourcing.

The real reason for CAFTA is to tap into the cheap labor markets of the impoverished Central American countries. It has nothing to do with opening up Central American markets to American goods, and everything to do with opening up Central American LABOR markets to exploitation by Corporate America. CAFTA is not in the best interests of the US or Central America. It is designed exclusively to allow U.S. multinationals to further enslave the semi-slave laborers of Central America, and force U.S. workers to compete with them.

This bill is designed to benefit the few, at the expense of the many. CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES VOTING FOR THIS BILL ARE VOTING EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE INTERESTS OF CORPORATE AMERICA, AND AGAINST THE VOTERS WHO ELECTED THEM.Congressional representatives voting for this bill are voting exclusively for the interests of Corporate America, and against the voters who elected them. CAFTA should be defeated. It is anti-labor and anti-American.

-------------
I'll try to post some links to Congess in another letter.

unlawflcombatnt

[unlawflcombatnt]

Here is a link to send letters to Congress. If you're willing to pay $8.95, you can make your letter public on Yahoo so that other Yahoo readers can see it. You need to check the option for hand-delivery to do this. Let me know if this link doesn't work. I have others.

http://www3.capwiz.com/y/dbq/officials/

unlawflcombatnt

[Carl]

CAFTA is likely to be voted on tomorrow or Thursday, so unless you feel like overnighting your letters, it may be more effective to call. 1-800-718-1008 will get you to a system that will automatically connect you to your representative's office. I believe it is a Steelworkers line, but thats the number that Working America has been giving out.

Carl

[Kevin Norton]

Amen, imagine that.... 'Rewarding our friends and punishing our enemies.' I would go further and run people against all weak democrats where we can, and if republicans support our position give them money. Take back the democratic party. We gave $ 100 million plus in the last election cycle, and they can't support us the workers who elected them, then run them out of office..... on a rail.

[Jan]

I just want to know who the hell decided to continue to support and give money to Dems that screw workers? I think it would be better to just hold on to the money instead of giving it to legislators that vote against us.

I mean, did I miss something along the way??? I can guarantee you if labor pulled out on all Dems and even Republicans that vote in favor of big business, the NLRB, Bush, the Supreme Court nominees, CAFTA, OSHA laws I bet everyone would wake up and smell the coffee.

Oh, I forgot-Americans are asleep at the wheel.

[unlawflcombatnt]

Tonight there were speeches on CSPAN from the opponents of CAFTA as well as the proponents. One of CAFTA's advocates mentioned the "opening markets" fantasy. He gleefully claimed that CAFTA countries have a $15 billion market that we could tap into. $15 billion? That's only a little more than 1/1000th of our $12 trillion GDP. If we captured their entire market it would make almost no difference. In contrast, CAFTA would add 20-40 million workers to the 140 million American workers that Corporate America can tap into. This increased supply of workers would reduce the "price" of labor, which means it would reduce wages. It not only causes job loss, it reduces the wages of those who still have jobs.

This isn't about opening consumer markets. It's about opening foreign labor markets to further exploitation by Corporate America. And it's about making American workers compete against these low-wage, easily exploitable workers.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary
http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

______________________
Capitalism cannot function without consumer income. The benefits of capital investment are limited by consumers' ability to buy the products of capital investment.

There must be balance between the "means of consumption" and the "means of production."

[figure it out]

I am pleased to see that you guys have FINALLY figured our that the democrats are not your friends!

For 50 years labor has supported these people and where has it gotten you? Unions are weaker now than ever before.

Stop hating the republicans and strat looking at what they are trying to do for this country. It is not all theevil rich against the working man that you want to make it out to be.

Wake up and look around. Labor will sink or swim as the rest of the economic engine sinks or swims. It is that simple

[Russell Novkov]

We need to elect real Democrats.

[John G. Gibbs]

The Democratic Party has heretofore been our only realistic hope of stopping the Far Right extremists. Now that this party has become too weak to do that, we in the electorate have to consider alternatives--however long the time may be required for starting anew from scratch,.