THE HILL
 

Ties between Obama and labor tested

By Sam Youngman and Kevin Bogardus - 09/15/09 05:00 AM ET

President Barack Obama’s address to the AFL-CIO on Tuesday will shed light on a precarious friendship that will be tested in the near future.

Though the president is expected to celebrate his relationship with unions that fervently supported his 2008 campaign, differences between Obama and organized labor will be at the forefront during his address at the AFL-CIO’s convention.

On healthcare, Obama has voiced support for a public insurance option but is not insisting on one. Organized labor wants a public option to drive down healthcare costs, and the AFL-CIO is expected to approve a resolution that backs a government insurance plan.

Obama supports a card-check bill that would make it easier for unions to organize, but has not thrown his weight into the congressional debate to force Congress to move on it more quickly.

Labor’s relationship with Obama will be further tested next year if the White House seeks to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws, or if it seeks congressional approval for several pending trade agreements that are opposed by unions.

Publicly, labor officials say they are just happy to have a seat at the table after being shut out of the White House during former President George W. Bush’s eight years in office.

“The access and the responsiveness have just been phenomenal,” said Kevin O’Connor, head of government relations for the International Association of Fire Fighters. He said the Obama administration is always willing to take advice from labor groups, and that even if Obama sometimes comes down against labor, it is a reasoned decision.

“Labor will not always get its way with any administration, Democrat or Republican. But having a seat at the table is the biggest difference from the Bush years,” O’Connor said.

But when incoming AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka makes his acceptance speech on Wednesday, he will make it clear that the union will hold all

Democratic politicians — including Obama — accountable if they do not live up to promises to support a public health insurance option and to win passage of the card-check bill.

“He’s going to say we’re going to hold the politicians we’ve elected accountable more than we have in the past,” an aide to Trumka said.

Trumka believes the president supports labor on key issues, but an aide warned there “will be consequences” for politicians in any office who say one thing and do another.

Though membership in unions has fallen, labor continues to be a key part of the Democratic political machine and will be important to Democratic fortunes in 2010. Still, unions are unlikely to support Obama’s opponent in 2012 if the president seeks reelection.

Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a center-left think tank, said that Obama will continue to enjoy a honeymoon with labor because of the memories of the last administration and the political realities of the near future.

“There is going to be a great deal of deference toward the president as he tries to maneuver around ideological and partisan obstacles to governing,” Marshall said.

He added that union leaders are likely to be more pragmatic than some progressive political groups.

“Unlike some of the activists on the left, labor is more realistic. They realize they are part of a governing coalition and they want to stay in that tent,” Marshall said.

Labor officials credit Obama with saying all the right things. He has offered personal support for the public health insurance option and a provision in the card-check bill that would eliminate an employer’s right to demand a secret-ballot election to determine union representation, even if he has not put the full weight of his office behind either effort.

On Labor Day, Obama attended an Ohio AFL-CIO picnic and vowed to support the card-check bill, which is fiercely opposed by business groups, in an effort “to level the playing field so it’s easier for employees who want a union to form a union.”

“Nothing wrong with that. Because when labor is strong, America is strong,” Obama said to raucous applause. “When we all stand together, we all rise together.”

So far, Obama has certainly been good to labor.

The first piece of legislation he signed as president was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a labor priority that strengthened protections for women’s pay.

The $787 billion economic stimulus package included funding geared toward rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, expanding clean energy technology and maintaining schools — all key labor priorities.

Obama also has signed executive orders to strengthen worker protections.

Obama’s loyalty to labor has sometimes complicated his affairs. His decision to impose tariffs on Chinese tires in response to a petition from the United Steelworkers union has set off a firestorm with China, the largest U.S. trading partner and a rising global power. It could make for some awkward conversations next week when Obama hosts leaders from China and other countries at a summit in Pittsburgh.

As his presidency goes forward, he’s likely to come up against more friction with labor unions.

On immigration, Obama has supported a temporary-worker program that is a problem for some unions, while on trade, his administration has said it wants to find a way forward for pending deals with Panama and Colombia.

Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.) on Monday said the decision to impose tariffs on Chinese tires could help move trade agreements forward by giving members of Congress certainty that trade laws will be enforced.

But that doesn’t mean unions are likely to support the pending trade deals.

“Are unions going to turn around to support the trade agreements with Panama and Colombia? Not a chance,” said Bill Reinsch, a former Commerce undersecretary in the Clinton administration and president of the pro-trade National Foreign Trade Council. “There will clearly be bumps down the road.”

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/58689-obama-labor-ties-tested

Comments (6)

The unions have outlived their basic usefulness that was so important during the industrial revolution. Now they are a huge weight around the neck of progress. Why don't they get it, or are they just so greedy they could care less about the economy and fairness.BY John Foncannon on 09/15/2009 at 09:16
Now that Acorn has been cut off, where will the Democrats get all of their corrupt votes?Such a loss.The Anerican people consider the White House and Congress but a den of thieves.Ralph Waldo Emerson said it so well:"WHO YOU ARE SPEAKS SO LOUDLY I CAN HARDLY HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING."Ralph Emerson LayneBY Ralph Emerson Layne on 09/15/2009 at 09:49
I thought there were no seats for special interests at the Obama table.BY Craig on 09/15/2009 at 11:08
SEIU and ACORN brothers in arms fighting the good fight for the complete Govt. takeover of our lives. I just got back from Romania to see what a dictator can do to ruin a country. Fight for ours! SAy no to the unions.BY danceswithtrees on 09/15/2009 at 11:14
I too used to think that unions had outlived their usefulness until my fiance finally joined to find work. Now he is on out-of work lists all across the Northwest and if he is next on the out-of-work list he gets the opportunity to work whereas in the open market all he has to do is walk in the door, they look at his gray hair, and politely say we'll get back to you.BY Change of heart on 09/15/2009 at 13:13
STRONG UNIONS are a fundamental basis for a middle-class. Collective bargaining ensures that workers are paid RESPECTABLE WAGES AND BENEFITS, which lifts incomes for country’s overall workforce. Therefore, it should be no surprise that the SHRINKING of the often touted MIDDLE CLASS in the U.S. also coincides with a DECLINE IN UNION MEMBERSHIP. If the public is truly concerned about strengthening our country’s middle class, as so many people say they are, the most beneficial road to take is one that strengthens America’s collective bargaining potential. I am an American living in Norway, where unions are well organized, well funded, and widely participated in. Norway ranks as one of the most economically developed and democratic countries on the planet. Based on income figures alone, the size of the middle-class here is about 85%, again among the world’s largest middle-class countries.America is undoubtedly one of the world’s most robust democracies and vibrant economies. We have deep rooted traditions of civil liberties, perhaps the deepest in the world. Like Norway, we have a hard working labor force and an entrepreneurial spirit that is the basis of economic growth. Despite the common suggestion that “so many around the world hate us,” quite the opposite is true. For so many people struggling to survive in poorer countries, America, with our democracy and economy, is indeed a symbol of hope and aspiration and one that is something to be proud of. But pride in our country only gets us so far. VISION, COMMITMENT, AND GOOD CHOICES are also essential to the mix. And, while we may have vision and commitment, we have not made some of the best policy choices, specifically those that will build a national economy with a goal of growing a middle class. While we should have been ensuring that the overall number lower income families declines while middle class families expand, what has instead happened is America’s middle class families increasingly find themselves with smaller and smaller incomes. DATA from the Department of Labor clearly shows that income inequality in America has grown steadily since the 1970s. Today, the scale of inequality between the poorest and wealthiest citizens approaches the levels of Mexico and Argentina, while far surpassing those countries where workers have more control over their economic life, such as Germany, France, and Sweden. Census Bureau data again shows that over these same decades, the incomes gains of the top 20 percent have far outpaced income gains of the remaining 80 percent. Since 1980, the poorest 20 percent of America’s citizens have seen incomes rise 12 percent. The middle income earners have seen incomes rise 16 percent. Yet, the wealthiest 5 percent have seen their incomes rise some 31 percent. Correspondingly , the share of national income has grown considerably among the top 20 percent, while shares for the remaining 80 percent have decline.The numbers are even more striking when looking at the growth in income of the top 0.1 percent. As a New York Times column cited in 2005, no other income group has grown more in the past few decades than this small, but highly privileged group. In 1980, their average income was $1.2 million, but grew to $3 million by 2002. As a group of about 145,000 people, their share of the national income is a whopping 7.4 percent.Considering the hope that American offers to so many of its citizens and citizens of other countries, wealth gaps such as these generally, and the declining size of America’s middle-class specifically, is a certain THORN in that hope. We need to make the nation’s promises a reality! SUPPORTING THE EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT WOULD BE A GOOD START.BY Richard Whitehead on 09/15/2009 at 13:40

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.