Get the Feed
|
B E A R I N G S | campaign 2000
Keeping Labor Working
Seven years ago, the battle over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) marked the first time President Clinton joined forces with congressional Republicans in a debate that pitted the administration against some party loyalists, most notably organized labor. Clinton and the New Democrats won with NAFTA, but arguably lost the war in the elections of 1994. The Republican ‘revolution” and the capture of the Congress can be explained, at least in part, not by the actions of organized labor, but through labor’s inaction. Many union workers, without the regular Get Out the Vote (GOTV) efforts and grassroots organizing of their respective locals and internationals, simply stayed home. This decrease in union turnout - traditionally a reliable base for Democratic candidates - greatly assisted the Republicans. Far from a ‘revolution,” however, the Republicans captured Congress by a total of only 38,838 votes nationwide. As Michael Moore noted in his book Downsize This, if only 19,500 people had switched their votes in the 13 closest House races, the Democrats would have retained control. Surely the Republicans were not given a mandate. Just as certainly, the Democratic Party realized that every vote from its base is important, and when it takes votes for granted, it does so at its own peril. Fast forward five and one-half years. With one of the most significant national elections in recent memory looming in November - in addition to the presidency, both parties are angling for control of the House and the Senate - the Democratic administration, for reasons ranging from policy to legacy, has once again championed a large-scale international trade agreement with major ramifications for big business, organized labor and other constituencies. Much to the dismay of labor coalitions and human rights organizations, the November 1999 deal Beijing brokered with Washington granted China access to the World Trade Organization, which oversees international commerce. This led Congress to consider (with the strong backing of the administration) granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations to China. The stage was set for one of the biggest two-fronted lobbying efforts in history. Pitted against business coalitions, a Republican-led Congress, and a pro-PNTR administration, organized labor knew from the onset that it was in for a tough fight. The unions, via the AFL-CIO and their own internationals, employed a variety of lobbying tactics. One of organized labor’s greatest problems entailed convincing legislators that it opposed PNTR for China for reasons other than protectionism. Many critics have asserted that labor’s across-the-board fight against trade expansion measures is based solely on labor’s desire to protect American jobs by preventing the increase of imports. Labor officials have emphatically denied this in recent years, and have attempted to develop “blue-green” coalitions - aligning themselves with environmental and human rights groups to show concern for the environment and the welfare and well-being of workers around the globe. By the end of the “Battle of Seattle” in November 1999, the public was very much aware of the coalition building. Unionists, students, human right advocates, environmentalists and a few anarchists joined together, ultimately shutting down the WTO conference. The t-shirt slogan that most effectively captured the moment read: “Teamsters and Turtles - Together at Last.” This April, the AFL-CIO coaxed thousands of members to march in Washington with another diverse group of activists to protest the policies of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. A new image of labor was taking hold. “The AFL-CIO has really successfully packaged its public presentation,” Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow with the Institute for International Economics in Washington, D.C., told The New York Times in May. In the weeks prior to the May vote in the House on PNTR for China, the lobbying effort on behalf of organized labor - which involved every tactic from flooding members of Congress with letters and e-mails to staging organized rallies with human rights activists - increased on all fronts. Members of one union, the United Steelworkers of America, sent more than 200,000 letters urging House members to defeat the bill. Radio and television commercials aired in key legislative districts. One television ad depicted sweatshops and clothing with a “Made in China” label. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters even set up a “War Room” similar to the one created across town in the White House. At a rally on the east steps of the U.S. Capitol on the eve of the vote, former Chinese political prisoner Harry Wu urged congressional members to “Vote your conscience, not just for profits.” What happened? Why did House members, in surprisingly decisive numbers (237-197, with 164 Republicans and 73 Democrats voting in favor) support PNTR for China? One reason was labor’s failure to secure strong support of key congressional members - particularly Minority Leader Richard Gephardt and Charles Rangel, a ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee. They did receive Gephardt’s vote - though Gephardt didn’t provide the intense internal lobbying effort labor needed from this high-ranking, well-respected labor supporter. And when Rangel announced in the days before the vote that he would support PNTR, it opened the door for up to a dozen fence sitters to vote in favor as well (click here to read Rangel’s floor debate statement on China PNTR) In the end, pressure from the business lobby, the White House and other congressional members - coupled with the fact that the majority of the general public did not have a firm position on the issue - led to the passage of PNTR for China. Had the economy been in disarray or had House members felt that potential losses from organized labor could not be made up elsewhere, perhaps the outcome would have been different. But as substantial as labor’s effort was, was it all labor could muster? Yes and no. Labor leaders made blocking PNTR for China their top priority for 2000 - at least that’s what one heard early in the year. The AFL-CIO’s “No Blank Check for China” campaign started in 1999 and came to a head just before the House vote in May. Despite this effort, there are signs that many within organized labor weren’t willing to go all-out, because they didn’t want to cripple friendly Democrats and hurt chances for a Democratic takeover in the fall. The 1994 elections still serve as a harsh reminder for those within the labor movement of what happens when they don’t turn out in droves to support pro-labor (mostly Democratic) candidates. The result is a legislative environment unions deem as anti-worker. On May 8, for example, according to an article in National Journal, as Air Force One was flying President Clinton and members of Congress to the funeral of Cardinal John O”Connor, Clinton personally lobbied members of the New York delegation (including Rangel) about China trade. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney was also on the plane, but passed up the chance to lobby a captive audience. There was one step the AFL-CIO was unwilling to take, or even consider: withdrawal of its endorsement of Vice President Al Gore for as long as he supported PNTR. Could such a show of force have worked? Possibly, but it was too risky. Organized labor, despite recent gains in stature and power, is still comparatively weak, and the groups understand that they need to work with one of the two parties - usually the Democrats. Moreover, organized labor itself represents a broad coalition, each with varying degrees of interest in the PNTR debate. The majority are convinced that far more good will come by supporting Democrats whole-heartedly in the fall, even if the Democrats are only supportive of labor’s interests three quarters of the time. Three unions, though, didn’t feel the need to be chummy. The United Auto Workers, the United Steelworkers and the Teamsters have taken tougher stances - and for good reason. The UAW lost more than half its membership in recent decades, as manufacturing jobs have gone abroad. The same can be said for the Steelworkers, whose products have been undercut by cheaper foreign counterparts (click here to read United Steelworkers President George Becker’s testimony July 19 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committe on China PNTR). Unlike the majority of union leaders, Teamsters President James P. Hoffa doesn’t owe the Democrats anything. The Democratic Party funneled money to Hoffa’s opponent, Ron Carey, in the hotly contested Teamster presidential race of 1996. Moreover, Hoffa can afford to be a maverick of sorts as he needs to create his own identity (and remove himself from his father’s shadow), show his own strength and quite possibly position himself for John Sweeney’s position as president of the AFL-CIO some time down the road. The AFL-CIO has stated publicly that it will do all it can to support the Democrats and Gore in November, and plans on spending close to $50 million this year, much of it on Get Out the Vote efforts. Indeed, Sweeney told The New York Times, “We can never match [Republicans] dollar for dollar. But we have people power and an ability to communicate with people one-on-one. They have to try to buy that kind of voter contact.” But certain unions are holding out and taking a more steadfast approach. The UAW waited until Aug. 8 to endorse Gore and the Teamsters, representing nearly two million workers, have yet to endorse Gore’s presidential bid. They view Gore’s quiet lobbying in support of PNTR as more than just one vote, or one issue, but as a stand against their livelihood. Moreover, the Teamsters have actually rescinded endorsements of at least three California Democrats who voted in support of PNTR. Despite this reluctance, organized labor as a whole has made the first major concession to Gore and the Democrats. With the Democratic Convention set to begin in Los Angeles today, many within the Democratic Party earlier had feared that large-scale protests, similar to those in Seattle and in Washington, would disrupt and taint what is supposed to be a show of force, unity and progress for the Democrats. But labor groups have already stated that they will not supply rank and file members to participate, making a massive protest effort less likely. The Gore team offered no such concession to labor when it chose Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, chairman of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. “While basically a good Democrat, he adds no special labor appeal to the ticket. He is sound on the issues that aren’t in play right now. On the big issues, such as trade, his position is the same as the [Clinton] administration’s,” Tom Pazzi a veteran Washington, D.C.-based Democratic political consultant who has worked with organized labor, told me this week. Rather than try to appease a disgruntled segment of the Democratic base, the Gore team viewed the positive media that accompanied the first Jewish vice-presidential nominee as a far stronger boost for the struggling campaign. Fresh from the Philadelphia convention, Texas Gov. George W. Bush enjoyed a surge in the polls; the Lieberman selection helped to deflate this bounce, though Gore still lags behind (see Washington Post poll from Aug. 12). Lieberman, moreover, is a senator respected on both sides of the aisle, and, as his condemnation of President Clinton in September of 1998 indicated, he is a man of strong ‘moral fiber”- a welcome factor to counter the oft-heard “Clinton Fatigue.” His selection has also helped Gore to redefine his own identity. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle noted just before Gore made his selection, “This election is a battle for who wins the American middle.” Hopefully for the Democrats, Gore’s desire to capture the independent vote will not further alienate organized labor. PNTR for China has yet to be signed into law as it continues to be debated in the Senate. House members who supported PNTR would like nothing more than to see their version of the bill pass in the Senate, so as to avoid additional House debates. Unfortunately for the Democrats, the hard feelings that resulted will only heal with time. November, however, is no longer a long way off.
Anthony Cupaiuolo is a Democratic consultant in Washington, D.C. He will begin work as an associate for Staton & Hughes in San Francisco later this month. Sites Mentioned Elsewhere on the Web On the Pop Side
|
