Well, SEIU’s gone and done it now. They backed an actual progressive in the MD-04 Democratic primary over a pro-war, pro-corporate corruptocrat, and the Congressional Black Caucus is… displeased:
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are seething at the Service Employees International Union for the group’s involvement in helping to defeat Rep. Albert Wynn (D-Md.) in a primary last week, the latest manifestation of what some say is a larger problem that exists between the two groups.
Following a closed-door CBC meeting on Wednesday, the day after Wynn’s landslide loss to lawyer and community activist Donna Edwards (D), CBC Chairwoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Mich.) plans to reach out to SEIU President Andrew Stern and request a meeting to discuss caucus members’ concerns.
(…)
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and several other CBC members said there was palpable anger within the group over Wynn’s treatment. He said members believe the eight-term lawmaker did not have an anti-labor voting record and they are perplexed as to why he was so aggressively targeted.
“The Black Caucus members are very upset,” Cummings said last week. “I’m very upset. I think my fellow members think he didn’t deserve that.”
Anti-Wynn ads paid for by SEIU’s Committee on Political Education blanketed local airwaves in the final weeks before Tuesday’s primary. SEIU-COPE reported spending at least $875,000 to communicate to voters in Maryland’s 4th district on Edwards’ behalf, with the bulk of that going for television advertising.
(…)
Wynn voted in favor of the Iraq War resolution in 2002 and bankruptcy reform in 2005, two positions that Edwards hammered the incumbent on during the race. She also pointed to the hundreds of thousands of dollars in corporate political contributions Wynn had accepted in an effort to paint him as more beholden to industry interests than his constituents.
“Our members did not feel that Al Wynn was representing their interests anymore,” Mueller said. “The Representative wasn’t listening to the constituents in his own district.”
Here’s the part that really disturbs me, though:
[A CBC member who wished to remain anonymous] said that aside from the union’s involvement in Wynn’s primary, his colleagues are upset about the “glaring disparity” in SEIU’s political action committee giving to vulnerable Democrats compared to its contributions to CBC members, most of whom sit in politically safe districts but have strong voting records on labor issues.
“It’s very disheartening,” the CBC member said, pointing out that SEIU represents a membership that is largely made up of African-Americans and minorities while the union’s leadership is majority white.
(…)
The Member asserted that CBC members are less likely to receive the maximum contribution from SEIU’s PAC largely because they are considered safe politically.
According to CQ MoneyLine, SEIU doled out a little more than $1 million to federal candidates and PACs in 2007. Of that amount, at least $98,000 was distributed among 22 members of the CBC and their PACs.
Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) said the CBC needs to have a broader discussion with SEIU about the union’s pattern of giving.
“We have a need to talk with our friends in labor about the disparity in giving to those of us who have tremendous records,” Hastings said.
So… let me get this straight. The CBC is mad that SEIU isn’t donating to members who… don’t need it? I assume that SEIU is making strategic decisions on how best to leverage limited financial resources, so to me it makes perfect sense to focus their donations on candidates who need it rather than candidates in safe seats. To me it sounds like the CBC is not asking for help so much as demanding tribute.
Maybe the CBC is just used to corporate donors who use their deeper pockets to buy loyalty rather than elect progressives.
February 19th, 2008 at 07:52pm
Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under:
Democrats,
Labor,
Politics,
Wankers
Whoopsie:
Mr. Huckabee on Wednesday professed his support for the striking television writers union just a few hours before he was expected to board a plane for a taping of the “Tonight Show” with Jay Leno where he will face a vocal picket line of striking writers.
Mr. Leno’s program is returning to the air for the first time since the strike began on Nov. 5. Speaking to reporters, Mr. Huckabee said he was unaware that he would be crossing a picket line and believed that the program had reached a special agreement with the union.
Um, no, Huck. That was Dave.
Although crossing picket lines might not be unusual for most Republican candidates, Mr. Huckabee has waged an unusual populist campaign on economic issues, stressing his empathy with the anxieties of working people. On Wednesday, he said he identified with the striking television workers as an author himself and believed they deserved a share of the proceeds from the sale of their work.
Mr. Huckabee’s lack of knowledge about the picket lines outside the Leno show are the latest in a string of missteps that have underscored the ad hoc nature of his campaign. Last week, he made a series of small misstatements about Pakistan that raised questions about his fluency with foreign affairs and raised eyebrows by suggesting that the situation in Pakistan could lead to special scrutiny of Pakistanis at the borders in the interest of national security.
To say nothing of his complete lack of awareness that a new Iran NIE even existed…
The Huckabubble must be even thicker and opaquer than the Dubyabubble.
January 2nd, 2008 at 09:04pm
Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under:
Huckabee,
Labor
Little-known fact: “Al-Qaeda” is actually Arabic for “The Teamsters”.
U.S. labor leaders have written a biting letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, voicing concerns that the government is collecting labor union data on airline passengers flying to the United States from Europe to determine whether they pose a terrorism risk.
As part of an agreement reached in July between the United States and European Union, airlines are required to provide personal data on millions of U.S.-bound passengers, such as names and credit card information. European negotiators won restrictions on the use of such sensitive information as religion, sexual orientation and union membership.
But the Passenger Name Record Agreement states that that data can be used in exceptional cases, “where the life of a data subject or of others could be imperiled or seriously impaired,” such as in a counterterrorism investigation.
“We agree with the department’s objective to identify those representing a genuine threat, but we categorically reject the notion that union membership has any bearing on this determination,” AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney and Edward Wytkind, president of the AFL-CIO’s Transportation Trades Department, wrote in a letter dated yesterday. “Even the suggestion that union membership is somehow indicative of a threat to security is offensive to the millions of workers we are proud to represent.”
Umm, I also have to ask: Are there a lot of gay terrorists? And what about gay union members? Should they even be allowed to travel?
October 12th, 2007 at 08:02pm
Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under:
Labor,
Republicans,
Teh Gay,
Terrorism
The rest of the Edwards pictures:
Like I said, he was fired up.
Here, he attempts to lighten the mood with some bird calls.
John gets some love from the Steel Workers.
Elizabeth doesn’t seem to mind.
Elizabeth gets some love too. And why not.
September 3rd, 2007 at 07:17pm
Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under:
Democrats,
Edwards,
Labor,
People,
Photoblogging,
Pittsburgh,
Politics
Also, did I mention John Edwards was in town? He was pretty fired up, talking to a pretty much all-Labor crowd. The highlights that I can remember:
o Universal, mandatory, portable healthcare, to be paid for by repealing upper-class tax cuts.
o No more tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas either.
o Tighter trade regulations in general.
o Inviolate picket lines.
o Enforcement of safety regulations.
Needless to say, that all went over pretty well.
And, of course, I have pictures…
Edwards is polling very strong in the all-important 0-1 demographic.
September 3rd, 2007 at 05:31pm
Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under:
Democrats,
Edwards,
Labor,
People,
Photoblogging,
Pittsburgh,
Politics
Interesting little tidbit tacked on to the end of Harold Meyerson’s column comparing Hillary to Ed Muskie:
In August 2005, I wrote a column about a recent National Labor Relations Board (Republican majority thereof) ruling that upheld the legality of a company’s banning its employees from fraternizing off the job, citing as a woozy precedent a previous ruling that had banned hotel employees from fraternizing with guests. Earlier this month, the D.C Court of Appeals overturned that 2005 ruling — reaffirming, broadly speaking, that the employer-employee relationship isn’t that of a lord to a serf, and, more narrowly, that happy hour with your co-workers is your true-blue American right.
I’m not sure which is more insane - that a company tried to ban its employees from hanging out with each other after work, or that the NLRB thought this was perfectly okay. Then again, if both are majority Republican, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
February 14th, 2007 at 09:57am
Posted by Eli
Entry Filed under:
Labor,
Republicans,
Wankers
