Abby Finkenauer announced on Facebook Monday that she was “thrilled” to be endorsed by the political arm of Iowa’s largest labor union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Finkenauer is one of three Democrats running in Dubuque-based Iowa House district 99, which Pat Murphy is vacating to run for Congress. She is a former page to Murphy when he was Iowa House speaker and has most recently clerked for State Representative Todd Taylor. Former State Representative Tom Jochum is backing Finkenauer’s candidacy too.

The AFSCME Iowa Council 61 PEOPLE Committee endorsed Murphy and several other Congressional candidates Monday, but I couldn’t find anything on their website about Finkenauer’s race. AFSCME staff confirmed by telephone this morning that the PEOPLE committee is backing Finkenauer but would not provide any statement on the endorsement or any comment on whether the state’s largest labor union plans to get involved in any other Democratic primaries in legislative districts. Finkenauer commented in her Facebook post, “I know that they do not normally endorse in State House primaries, so I am beyond honored to have their support and encouragement as I continue to work to be the best Democratic candidate for Iowa House District 99 […].”

I understand taking sides in a primary when one candidate is clearly best poised to win the general election or advocate for a group’s issues. But House district 99 is a safe seat for any Democrat, and rival candidates Steve Drahozal and Greg Simpson sound equally committed to progressive values. If AFSCME isn’t even willing to issue a statement explaining its preference for Finkenauer, maybe the union would do better to stay out of primaries.

UPDATE: AFSCME provided a statement via e-mail, which I have added after the jump.

The elections arm of Iowa’s largest labor union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, announced five endorsements for the 2014 elections today. I’ve posted the whole statement from the AFSCME Iowa Council 61 PEOPLE Committee after the jump. The biggest news is AFSCME coming out early for former Iowa House Speaker Pat Murphy in IA-01. Two other Democrats are already campaigning for that open seat, probably to be joined soon by State Representative Anesa Kajtazovic and former State Senator Swati Dandekar.

In IA-03, AFSCME will back former State Senator Staci Appel, who voted for a number of pro-labor bills during her four years in the legislature. Gabriel De La Cerda is also running in the Democratic primary and was an Iowa political coordinator for the United Steel Workers Union during the 2012 general election campaign. No one will be surprised to see AFSCME supporting four-term incumbent Dave Loebsack in IA-02 or Jim Mowrer in IA-04, where no other Democrat is likely to take on Steve King.

AFSCME hasn’t endorsed a Democratic challenger to Governor Terry Branstad yet. The only statewide candidate named in today’s release is Brad Anderson for Iowa secretary of state. He has the backing of most of Iowa’s Democratic establishment and may not face any competition in the primary, although former Secretary of State Michael Mauro hasn’t ruled out a comeback attempt.

Governor Terry Branstad did not succeed in changing the health insurance benefits available to most of the 20,000 state employees covered by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). However, the governor managed to block across-the-board salary increases for state workers during the next two fiscal years.  

Governor Terry Branstad’s administration and labor unions representing public employees have virtually no chance of reaching agreement on a new two-year contract, judging from the proposal Branstad’s lead negotiator presented to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Council 61 on Friday.

Yesterday Local 61 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) released its first proposal for the next two-year contract covering roughly 20,000 state employees in Iowa. I’ll be shocked if these contract talks don’t end up in arbitration.

Later this fall, Governor Terry Branstad will begin negotiating new two-year contracts with several labor unions that represent state employees. He will come to the table armed with research that purportedly shows Iowa has been over-compensating its public workers.

Governor Terry Branstad will seek legislative action to increase pension contributions from Iowa’s police officers and professional firefighters. The change would offer relief for city budgets while cutting into the paychecks of public safety workers.

AFSCME Iowa Council 61 filed a prohibited practice complaint yesterday with the Iowa Public Employment Relations Board, charging that Governor Terry Branstad disregarded Iowa’s collective bargaining law when he signed an executive order allowing state employees to contribute to their health insurance premiums.

Governor Terry Branstad confirmed earlier this week that employee contributions to health insurance premiums will be a major battleground during the next round of contract negotiations with unions representing state workers.  

The Iowa Supreme Court held an unusual evening session on February 21 to hear oral arguments in Governor Terry Branstad’s appeal of a district court ruling that declared two of his line-item vetoes illegal.

Polk County District Court Judge Brad McCall has upheld a legal challenge to Governor Terry Branstad’s veto of language intended to keep Iowa Workforce Development offices open across the state. Excerpts from the court ruling and background on the controversy are after the jump.

Terry Branstad was incensed last year when outgoing Governor Chet Culver quickly agreed to contract terms proposed by AFSCME and other unions representing state employees. Culver signed off on AFSCME’s request for a 2 percent across-the-board raise on July 1, 2011, followed by a 1 percent raise on January 1, 2012, another 2 percent raise on July 1, 2012, and a 1 percent raise on January 1, 2013. Other unions also asked for modest wage increases during the next two fiscal years.

On principle, Branstad felt Culver should have left the negotiating to the person who would be governor during the contract period. As a practical matter, Branstad insisted that the state of Iowa could not afford the salary hikes. He and other administration officials called on public sector unions to renegotiate the contracts, but union leaders refused to come back to the negotiating table.

This week Branstad formally asked the state legislature to give non-union state employees the same pay increases those represented by unions will receive.

While the governor continues to believe this contract spends too much money at a time when the state cannot afford it, there are not two classes of state employees, everyone is together and should be treated the same,” [Branstad’s spokesman Tim] Albrecht said.

The governor has not recommended the state pay for the upcoming salary increases. That means that state departments must find the money elsewhere in their budgets to pay for the salary increases.

House Study Bill 247 provides for the salary increases, as well as a few other things on the governor’s wish list. For instance, the bill would “lift the cap on the salary of Iowa’s economic development director, which Rep. Tyler Olson, D-Cedar Rapids, described as troubling.”

AFSCME and other state employee unions won this round, but count on a bruising battle when it’s time to negotiate contracts covering fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Branstad will resist pay increases and will demand benefit cuts, including substantial employee contributions to health insurance expenses. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the contracts for state employee unions end up in arbitration during the next go-around.

If Republicans gain an Iowa Senate majority in the 2012 elections, union-busting will be high on the agenda. A bill to limit state employees’ collective bargaining rights and curtail binding arbitration passed the Iowa House in March after a marathon floor debate. The bill died in the Iowa Senate Labor Committee.

P.S.–Branstad isn’t getting along much better with private-sector unions. Yesterday the Central Iowa Building and Construction Trades Council and the Cedar Rapids/Iowa City Building Trades Council filed a federal lawsuit seeking to force the governor and other state entities to honor project labor agreements for construction projects in Coralville and Marshalltown.

The first all-nighter of the 2011 legislative session ended this morning around 6:05 am, as the Iowa House Labor Committee approved a bill restricting public employees’ collective bargaining rights on a party-line vote.

Details on the bill, the debate, and the fight to come are after the jump.

UPDATE: Click here for more details on the draft budget the governor presented on January 27.

During his regular weekly press conference, Governor Terry Branstad announced today that state departments would have to take cuts because the state can’t afford the salary increases in the two-year contract Governor Chet Culver approved last year with AFSCME, the largest labor union representing state workers. Branstad added that he’s not worried about facing a lawsuit (like the one AFSCME successfully filed against him in 1991) because the Iowa legislature won’t fund the new AFSCME contract. AFSCME members overwhelmingly voted to approve the contract, which includes salary increases of just under 3 percent in fiscal years 2012 and 2013. Branstad wants the union to reopen negotiations.

Citing budget constraints, Branstad said today “he will not request any increase in ‘allowable growth’ in state aid for K-12 school districts base budgets in either of the next two fiscal years.” I believe the Democratic-controlled Iowa Senate will resist that plan.

UPDATE: Doesn’t sound like a way to provide “world-class education” for Iowa kids. Under Branstad’s “no allowable growth” proposal,

a school would not be legally allowed to expand their budgets unless the district sees a surge in enrollment.

Inflation for such things as employee salaries and fuel costs make a no-growth policy virtually impossible for hundreds of Iowa’s district to handle without massive cuts to programs, services and teachers, educational advocates said.

“The only way they can make it up is to cut programs or services and most of the schools have already been doing that,” said Brad Hudson, a lobbyist for the Iowa State Education Association. “Most of the schools have already looked at reductions to music, art and physical education. Now we’re to the point of looking at the elimination of programs and probably larger class sizes.”

Also during today’s press conference, Branstad said he does not favor state subsidies for passenger rail, although he isn’t against communities or railroads subsidizing that service, the Des Moines Register’s Kathie Obradovich reported. Those comments indicate that like Iowa House Republicans, Branstad wants to eliminate about $10 million in state funding needed to secure an $81 million in federal money to extend passenger rail service from the Quad Cities to Iowa City. The federal government awarded the funds last October.

UPDATE: William Petroski has more detail on Branstad’s passenger rail stance:

He noted that the $310 million state-federal project in cooperation with the state of Illinois would include money to upgrade the tracks of the Iowa Interstate Railroad, and he suggested the railroad could be asked to help contribute towards the costs.

“There are two questions: One is the state’s initial requirement and then there is an ongoing subsidy. I am most troubled by the ongoing subsidy. I don’t think we should be in the business of subsidizing passenger train service,” Branstad told reporters. […]

The governor, who will issue his state budget recommendations on Thursday, added that he still hasn’t made a final decision yet about the proposed Iowa City-to-Chicago train.

Branstad continued to advocate for biennial budgeting today. Legislators from both parties are wary of that proposal, because it would in effect increase the governor’s budget transfer powers. The national trend has been away from biennial budgeting, which tends to result in less accurate budget forecasting and greater need for supplemental appropriations than annual budgeting.

AFSCME Iowa Council 61 announced on December 22 that its membership overwhelmingly approved a new contract covering fiscal years 2012 and 2013. The vote means Governor-elect Terry Branstad will not be able to persuade state employees to accept a pay freeze in the name of budget austerity.

Details on the vote and more are after the jump.

Iowa’s three-member Revenue Estimating Conference again raised projections for state revenues during the current fiscal year and fiscal year 2012, following another month of growing state tax collections in November. The news hasn’t deterred Republican leaders from planning mid-year budget cuts, and legislators from both parties acknowledged the end of federal stimulus funds will make the next budget year difficult. Details and proposals are after the jump.

Debi Durham’s appointment as economic development leader was the big news of the week from Governor-elect Terry Branstad’s camp, but he and his close advisers continue to lay the groundwork for his administration.

After the jump I catch up on stories about the state budget, inauguration plans, and top Branstad donors from the past year.

What’s on your mind this weekend, Bleeding Heartland readers?

Past and perhaps future presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is in Des Moines tonight Sunday, headlining the Iowa Family Policy Center’s annual fundraiser. Other speakers include WHO talk radio personality Steve Deace and Iowa Family Policy Center Action president Chuck Hurley.

The big event is also Bob Vander Plaats’ debut as “president and chief executive officer of an umbrella group that includes the Iowa Family Policy Center, Marriage Matters and their political action committee.” The Iowa Family Policy Center endorsed Vander Plaats for governor. Huckabee came to Iowa to campaign for Vander Plaats, who chaired his successful Iowa caucus campaign in 2008.

Vander Plaats told journalists this week that his umbrella group will mobilize social conservatives and endorse a candidate for the upcoming Iowa caucus campaign. If Huckabee stays out of the presidential race, several campaigns will work hard to win the approval of Vander Plaats, Hurley and Deace. If Huckabee runs again, other candidates may as well not waste their time.

I got a robocall from Huckabee Thursday or Friday of this week, but I don’t know whether it was a fundraising call or an attempt to identify supporters. The call ended quickly after I answered “no” to the question, “Do you consider yourself pro-life?”

I’m headed to a friend’s birthday party tonight as soon as my version of Jewish noodle kugel comes out of the oven for the potluck. Quite a few Branstad voters will be in attendance (including the birthday girl), and I’m determined not to get into any arguments.

My Twitter feed is full of Republicans freaking out about Governor Chet Culver’s deal with AFSCME. A 2 percent raise for state employees, followed by a 1 percent raise, is far from excessive. Republican complaints about Culver’s lack of “courtesy” amuse me. It wasn’t too polite of Terry Branstad to spend millions of dollars on tv ads lying about I-JOBS and how Culver managed the state’s finances.

UPDATE: To clarify, the proposed contract with AFSCME involves a 2 percent across the board salary increase starting July 1, 2011, a 1 percent across the board salary increase starting January 1, 2012, another 2 percent across the board salary increase beginning July 1, 2012, and a 1 percent across the board salary increase starting January 1, 2013.

This is an open thread.

UPDATE: Kay Henderson posted a good liveblog of Huckabee’s November 21 press conference and his speech to the Iowa Family Policy Center crowd. The same post links to an audio clip of Huckabee’s comments to reporters and covers Vander Plaats’ speech to the crowd at the fundraiser.

Governor Chet Culver accepted a tentative deal today on a new two-year contract with with largest union representing state employees. The contract would increase the pay of all state workers covered by AFSCME by 2 percent in fiscal year 2012 (from July 2011 through June 2012), with another 1 percent wage increase in fiscal year 2013. Some employees would qualify for other pay increases as well.

Iowa Republicans immediately denounced the deal.

Following up on my review of news from the first half of last year, I’ve posted links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage of Iowa politics from July through December 2009 after the jump.

Hot topics on this blog during the second half of the year included the governor’s race, the special election in Iowa House district 90, candidates announcing plans to run for the state legislature next year, the growing number of Republicans ready to challenge Representative Leonard Boswell, state budget constraints, and a scandal involving the tax credit for film-making.

Iowa Council 61 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees announced today that its members approved a deal union leaders negotiated earlier this month to avoid about 500 layoffs. The vote was 59 percent in favor and 41 percent against.

The deal requires about 20,000 state workers to take five furlough days between now and June 30, 2010, and give up some $75 a month in state contributions to a supplemental retirement plan.

I was surprised to see that only about 66 percent of approximately 9,000 AFSCME members cast a ballot in this election. (Because Iowa is a right-to-work state, many workers who are covered by AFSCME’s contract are not members of the union.) Maybe the polling places weren’t convenient for a lot of people.

UPDATE: Charlie Wishman of AFSCME wrote me to say:

66% is an extremely high number, in fact the highest for a contract vote of any kind from our records.  We’re very proud of the membership turnout.  In fact, I believe it is higher than turnout for most general elections.  The membership absolutely cared a lot about this decision, and passions were high on both sides of the issue.  Council 61 had no position on the outcome of the vote other than we wanted everyone affected to have the opportunity to vote.

It is false to assume also that we didn’t make the polling sites as accessible as possible.  You can view them here http://www.afscmeiowa.org/mou.htm at the bottom of the page.  We were sure that no one would have had to travel over 48 miles to a voting site.  No one would have to travel over one hour, and all major sites were represented.

Governor Chet Culver sought negotiations with three unions last month when he rejected the preliminary spending reduction plans offered by the directors of the Department of Corrections and the Department of Public Safety.

The Iowa United Professionals union opted not to accept concessions in order to avoid 55 layoffs among its members.

The State Police Officers Council was to vote on a deal similar to what AFSCME negotiated, but I haven’t seen any results from that vote. If members vote for that agreement, 40 state trooper and gaming enforcement positions would be preserved. In exchange, about 640 union members would take five furlough days and give up some state contributions to a retirement plan.

UPDATE: Sounds like the State Police Officers Council also approved the deal. Culver will hold a press conference today at 2 pm to discuss the votes.

SECOND UPDATE: Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal’s statement is after the jump.

THIRD UPDATE: Kathie Obradovich observes, “Other governors have tried and failed to get concessions from the unions.”

The Iowa Democratic Party points out that Culver succeeded where Terry Branstad failed. The full statement is after the jump.

Health Care for America NOW and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees are running television ads this week thanking 20 Democrats in relatively tough districts who voted for the House health care reform bill last Saturday. If you live in the Des Moines viewing area, you may have seen this commercial about Congressman Leonard Boswell:

Corporate-funded conservative groups have targeted Boswell in negative ads this year because of his vote for the climate-change bill in June. Ads attacking the health care reform project (many funded by insurance industry fronts or the Chamber of Commerce) have been plentiful this summer and fall too. It makes sense for reform advocates to thank Boswell, as Iowa Republicans are gearing up to challenge him with State Senator Brad Zaun or some other well-known figure.  

In other health care reform news, Tom Harkin is among the Senate Democrats trying to keep the "Stupak amendment" language on abortion out of the Senate's version of health care reform. He's absolutely right that some people pushing amendments are trying to kill the bill rather than make it better. A lot of questions have been raised about whether defeating the bill was Representative Bart Stupak's main goal. Since 1992, Stupak has been involved with the fundamentalist Christian "Family" group and has lived in their house on C Street in Washington.  

Stupak claims that as many as 40 House Democrats would reject health care reform without his amendment, but yesterday House Whip James Clyburn said the Stupak amendment only gained 10 votes for the bill. Meanwhile, more than 40 House liberals are threatening to vote down the final bill out of conference if it contains the Stupak language.  

Final note: MyDD user Bruce Webb wrote an interesting piece about what he views as "the most important and overlooked sentence" in the House health care reform bill:  

Most of the criticism of HR3962 coming from the left revolves around the belief that the House bill has no premium and so no profit controls, that it in effect delivers millions of Americans into the hands of insurance companies who can continue to raise premiums at will while denying care by managing the risk pool in favor of those unlikely to make claims. This just is not true, not if the provision in this one sentence is properly implemented. In a stroke it guts the entire current business model of the insurance companies, based as it is on predation and selective coverage, and replaces it with a model where you can only make money by extending coverage to the widest range of customers and or delivering that coverage in a more efficient way.

 Like they say, go read the whole thing.
 

Members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees will vote between November 19 and November 25 on the deal reached by Governor Chet Culver and the union’s leadership:

The agreement includes five mandatory unpaid furlough days between now and June 30, which is expected to save about $22.7 million.

The state’s contribution to employees’ deferred compensation also will be temporarily suspended until June 30, for a savings of $3.7 million.

The total savings of $26.4 million is expected to save 479 AFSCME jobs. Culver sought concessions from the union in order to avoid the layoffs of state workers, especially state troopers and correctional officers working in state prisons.

Under the terms of the agreement, no member of the union who is an executive branch employee can be laid off until June 30, the end of the current fiscal year. Employees outside the bargaining units who are laid off will not be allowed to displace AFSCME employees.

The Des Moines Register has a few more details on the vote:

WHAT: A “memorandum of understanding” would require about 20,000 state workers to take five unpaid days off over the next seven months and sacrifice about $75 a month in state contributions to their deferred compensation, which is a supplemental retirement plan.

WHO CAN VOTE: Only active state workers who are currently paying dues to AFSCME will be eligible to cast a ballot.

WHEN: Voting will begin Nov. 19 and end Nov. 25.

WHERE: AFSCME will set up about 30 polling places across the state, such as at the Iowa Veterans Home and state prisons, for 12-hour periods.

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. If I were in the union, I would vote yes. Losing some retirement contributions and a week’s salary will cause some hardship, but many private-sector workers have also seen their wages drop during this recession. Minimizing layoffs should be the top priority.

Does anyone think the AFSCME members might vote down this agreement?

This afternoon Governor Chet Culver announced the next steps toward cutting $565 million from the 2010 budget. I’ve posted the governor’s statement after the jump, and you can find pdf files with more details about the cuts here. (UPDATE: The Des Moines Register posted this chart showing the cuts Culver approved.) Highlights:

Culver is ordering all of the 3,258 non-contract (that is, non-union) employees in the executive branch “to take seven days without pay between now and the end of the fiscal year. I do not believe it is fair for any state employee to not contribute toward our solution.”

Culver approved spending cut plans submitted by 28 department heads and approved, with minor changes, spending cut plans submitted by 6 other department heads. The Des Moines Register’s Jennifer Jacobs summarized the impact:

Altogether, the 34 approved plans will save the state’s general fund about $520 million, he said.

The approved plans call for a total of 180 layoffs and the elimination of 229 open positions. The total job loss, so far, is 410.

Here’s where there the layoffs will be: 79 from the Department of Human Services, 35 from the Department of Revenue, 10.8 from the Department of Inspections and Appeals,  13 from the Department of Education, eight from Iowa Public Television, eight from the Department of Public Health, seven from the Department of Economic Development, seven from the Department of Cultural Affairs, four from the Department of Administration, four from the Department of Management, two from the Alcoholic Beverages Division, two from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and one from the Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board.

Forty-three state employees tentatively set for layoffs in the Department of Commerce will be spared. The 10 percent across-the-board cut will not be applied to the divisions of banking, credit union, insurance and utilities divisions, which are agencies within the commerce department.

Culver rejected the $45 million spending reduction plans offered by the directors of the Department of Corrections and the Department of Public Safety, saying,

I reject these two plans because I am hopeful that we can find an alternative to laying off hundreds of correctional officers, state troopers and law enforcement personnel.

I am rejecting these plans because public safety is essential to our daily lives.

That is why yesterday I sent a letter to the state’s three bargaining units – AFSCME, Iowa United Professionals, and the State Police Officers Council – who represent more than 16,000 state employees – asking them to join me in negotiations for amending their current contract.  This past Saturday, I met with AFSCME’s bargaining unit – which represents more than 13,000 state employees – to discuss ideas for moving forward.  We followed that meeting with a three hour session yesterday morning and the talks have been very productive.  And earlier today, I met with the State Police Officers Council representatives and those talks were productive.  Finally, I will meet with the Iowa United Professionals union leadership as soon as schedules permits, but our staff has been in daily contact with their representatives.

I seek substantive discussions with all three unions on issues that may impact our state budget cuts.  Our goal is to do everything we can to prevent layoffs related to essential public safety.

If we cannot reach agreement with the unions, then I will implement the layoff plans submitted by these two departments.

Unfortunately, we do not have an endless amount of time in which to reach an agreement and to have it ratified by each respective union. I expect to know by Friday, November 6 whether we will move forward in discussions with the unions or implement the layoff plans.

The president of AFSCME Council 61 issued a statement saying his union will negotiate with the governor in the hope of avoiding layoffs. Both sides are promising not to release any details about the discussion until the talks conclude, but no doubt some proposed alternatives to layoffs will leak out before then.

The Des Moines Register’s Tom Beaumont covered Republican gubernatorial candidates’ ideas for cutting the budget here.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Not long ago I wrote about tension between Governor Chet Culver and advocates for organized labor in Iowa.

The Des Moines Register reported this week that labor layer Mark Hedberg has created a few hundred fake milk cartons with Culver’s photo under the word “MISSING”:

“Have you seen me?” the cartons read. “Description: Democratic Governor with alleged loyalty to Iowa workers and Labor. … Approach With Caution: May have developed amnesia and is known to throw fits when reminded of his promises. If found, please call 1-800-NOT-LOYAL.”

The Uncommon Blog of Iowa posted a photo of the fake milk cartons.

The Des Moines Register described the text on Hedberg’s creations:

BRAND NAME: The brand name of the milk is C Abunchof Hot Air. Under that label, it says: “Empty words added. Grade F homogenized pasteurized.”

SLOGANS: One side says “got chet?” and “High hopes by voters. Broken promises by Chet.”

NUTRITION INFORMATION: In the nutrition chart, the serving size is “1 term (4 years).” It goes on: “Amount of Support Per Serving: Hot Air 600, Empty Words 520.” There’s a breakdown of a fictitious percentage of daily values: corporate terrorist money 100%, secret health care legislation 100%, raising taxes on Iowa workers 100%, broken promises to labor 100%. It cites 0% for public employee union rights, fair share, prevailing wage, choice of doctor, employee misclassification and leadership.

“Corporate terrorist money” supposedly refers to a $5,000 campaign contribution to Culver from Agriprocessors, which allegedly has committed numerous labor and safety violations at its meat-packing plant in Postville.

The Register quoted Hedberg as saying that no union helped him pay for or assemble the fake milk cartons. His professional web site lists AFSCME and seven other unions as clients.

I’ve got four comments and one question regarding the issues Hedberg raised.

Comment 1: This wasn’t the best time to tease Culver about being missing on the job.

I find myself in rare agreement with Des Moines Register columnist John Carlson, who noted that Culver has been “anything but missing” in recent weeks. He’s been out there talking with Iowans in dozens of flooded communities.

Comment 2: Aside from collective bargaining, which refers to a bill Culver vetoed (House File 2645), most of Hedberg’s complaints apply equally to the Democratic leadership in the state legislature.

After all, it was the Iowa House and Senate which passed bills Hedberg doesn’t like (such as the cigarette tax increase) and failed to pass things he wants (such as “fair share” or “prevailing wage” legislation).

The Register quoted Hedberg as blaming Culver for the inaction: “He lost an opportunity to work out a joint party agenda and get it passed,” Hedberg said. “He didn’t take the initiative.”

My recollection is that Culver did support the “fair share” proposal. If the votes weren’t there to pass that or other measures important to organized labor, the solution is to elect more and better Democrats to the Iowa legislature.

The major labor unions in this state recognize this and are working to expand the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

The money Hedberg spent on his publicity stunt would have been better spent supporting the campaigns of Democratic incumbents or challengers who are good on labor issues. I’m sure he knows who they are.

Comment 3: Regarding the collective bargaining bill that Culver vetoed, I believe that labor advocates are wrong to put all of the blame for that mess on the governor.

As I’ve written before, I support the substance of the collective bargaining bill. However, the way that bill was passed would have made Culver look like a tool of organized labor if he had signed it.

The solution is for the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate to pass a collective bargaining bill the normal way next year. That is, get the proposal out in the open early in the session and allow full debate. Don’t let someone offer it as an extra-long amendment after the “funnel” deadline for introducing new legislation has passed, and then try to limit debate on the measure.

With several more Democrats in the Iowa House and Senate, we could get a good collective bargaining bill through with no problem.

Comment 4: I suspect that publicity about organized labor being mad at Culver is on balance good for the governor. Who can claim that he is beholden to “special interest” unions when a labor lawyer is giving him low ratings on their issues and the Iowa Federation of Labor’s newsletter publishes this?

“The 2008 Legislative Session will go down in Iowa labor history as the session when a Democratic governor turned his back on the unions that enthusiastically supported him and helped get him elected,” the newsletter said. “When Gov. Culver vetoed the public sector collective bargaining bill, not only public workers, but all of labor was stunned by what they felt was an out-and-out betrayal.”

If Hedberg’s goal is to drum up more business for his law firm, fake milk cartons making fun of Culver might achieve that. But if the goal is pressuring the governor to spend more political capital on supporting labor’s legislative agenda, I don’t see this working.

The milk cartons give the serving size for Culver as “1 term (4 years).” But let’s get real. Labor unions are not going to support a Democratic primary challenger to Culver in 2010, and they are not going to support his Republican opponent.

This whole controversy will probably help Culver’s reelection campaign more than it hurts.

Which leads me to my question for labor advocates who are angry with Culver:

Do you have any reason to believe that Mike Blouin, whom AFSCME and some other unions endorsed in the 2006 Democratic primary for governor, would have signed the collective bargaining bill under the same circumstances, or would have done more to adopt “fair share” or “prevailing wage” legislation?

If so, I’d like to hear why. I never did fully understand the union support for Blouin. It’s not as if Blouin’s economic development work focused on creating union jobs or promoting collective bargaining. If anything, he got more money and support from Chamber of Commerce types than Culver.

Let’s elect a stronger Democratic majority in the Iowa House and Senate. If good labor bills are adopted through normal legislative procedures in 2009, I expect Culver to sign them.

UPDATE: Someone has e-mailed me to note that AFSCME and other unions endorsed Blouin not because they thought he’d be better on labor issues, but because they thought Culver couldn’t beat Jim Nussle.

That was also my impression (although I have no contacts inside those unions).

I think that if they’d gotten their wish and Blouin had won the primary, we would have a governor no more supportive of collective bargaining or “fair share” than Culver, and perhaps even less supportive.  

Jason Hancock has a story up at Iowa Independent about labor unions working hard to increase the Democratic majorities in the Iowa legislature.

It’s clear that members of the labor community are still furious that Governor Chet Culver vetoed a collective-bargaining bill passed toward the end of this year’s session:

Ken Sager, president of the Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, said the 2008 legislative session ended on a sour note, but he hopes that be used as motivation in the future.

“A lot of our members are very disappointed and angry that we were finally able to get a [collective bargaining] bill through the legislature and we couldn’t get the governor’s signature,” he said. “We were very surprised, and we’ve heard from a number of legislative leaders who were just as stunned as we were. Now, we’re trying to focus that anger in a productive way to help build the labor movement for the future.”

In the federation’s most recent newsletter, the veto was put in much starker terms.

“The 2008 Legislative Session will go down in Iowa labor history as the session when a Democratic governor turned his back on the unions that enthusiastically supported him and helped get him elected,” the newsletter said. “When Gov. Culver vetoed the public sector collective bargaining bill, not only public workers, but all of labor was stunned by what they felt was an out-and-out betrayal.”

Cityview weekly’s “Civic Skinny” column recently commented on the strained relationship:

It wasn’t on his schedule, but [Culver] showed up the other day at the dedication of the Iowa Workers Monument. Skinny wasn’t sure what that means – so she turned to the Senior Analyst for Civic Skinny, who had a ready explanation. “This was organized labor’s effort to recognize Iowa’s workers that started way back in 2004. With the collective bargaining veto, it would have added insult to injury to have skipped the event, but he didn’t put it on his public schedule or send out a press release to promote the dedication of the monument – which is located on state property,” the Senior Analyst analyzed. Then, morphing into a Senior Cynic, he added: “Maybe this was the advice he got from the same pollsters that advised him to veto the collective bargaining bill.” “Way back in 2004” is code for “during the Vilsack administration,” and several Vilsack people – including the former governor himself – are on the Monument committee, which might be another reason Culver didn’t play up the dedication.

I wish labor unions every success in helping elect more Democratic legislators who are strong on their issues.

If Culver had asked for my advice, I would have encouraged him to sign the collective-bargaining bill. I wasn’t persuaded by the arguments that corporate and Republican interest groups made against it.

That said, the Democrats in the legislature badly bungled the passage of the bill, in my opinion.

Let’s take a step back.

In 2007 the slim Democratic majority in the House was unable to hold together to pass the “fair share” bill that would have weakened Iowa’s right-to-work law. This was one of the hot-button issues from the earliest days of the session, and it was a blow to the leadership’s credibility not to get it through.

Statehouse leaders tried a different tactic with the collective-bargaining bill this year. Instead of making clear early in the session that it would be one of their priorities, they let it be added as a 14-page amendment to a different bill, after the first funnel deadline had passed.

In theory, bills need to be approved by a legislative committee before that funnel deadline in order to be voted on during the legislative session. There are exceptions (the leadership can introduce new bills after the funnel), but in general, major initiatives are not supposed to be introduced after the funnel date.

Then, Democrats tried to limit debate over the collective bargaining proposal, prompting Senate Republicans to take unusual steps to force debate on it.

As I said above, I support the substance of the bill. I understand why it would be advantageous for the leadership not to tip their hand early in the session about the collective bargaining bill. Doing so would have given opponents more time to mobilize against it and lean on the less reliable members of the Democratic caucus.

But look at this situation from Culver’s perspective. The Democrats in the legislature looked like they were afraid to debate the collective bargaining measure in broad daylight. That’s what is implied when you introduce a major policy initiative as a long amendment and limit debate before forcing it through on a party-line vote.

I have no idea whether Culver vetoed the bill over substantive disagreements or solely because of political considerations, but I understand his reluctance to get behind a controversial bill approved in this manner.

Let’s elect more good Democrats to the legislature. They should be able to pass a strong collective bargaining bill next year without giving the appearance of trying to slip it in under the radar.

Then Culver should sign it without hesitation.

According to Hotline, AFSCME and MoveOn.org Political Action are spending $543,000 to run this ad in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and on CNN and MSNBC for a week, beginning on Wednesday:

What do you think?

McCain’s campaign will claim that he’s been taken out of context, and that he doesn’t want us to be at war in Iraq for 100 years. The bottom line, though, is that most Americans don’t want our troops bogged down in Iraq forever, staffing permanent bases, even if casualty rates declined considerably.

UPDATE: An e-mail I received from Moveon.Org says this ad is “the most effective TV ad we’ve ever created.” It says Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research surveyed viewers of this ad and found that a “61 percent majority describe the ad as convincing.”

The full text of the Moveon.Org e-mail is after the jump.

Howard Fineman has a story up saying AFSCME will endorse Hillary Clinton next week:

http://www.msnbc.msn…

I’m told by labor sources that the endorsement will come next Thursday after a series of AFSCME committee meetings. The union, whose members by definition are no strangers to politics, has 30,000 members in the crucial caucus state of Iowa, plus 90,000 in Michigan and 110,000 in Florida – two other “early” states in the nomination process. 

And so the Clinton Family Machine grinds on.  The president of AFSCME, Gerald McEntee, goes back a long way with the Clintons, to the early stages of the 1992 presidential campaign. McEntee took a flier on a then-obscure governor of Arkansas. The AFSCME endorsement provided Bill Clinton with an important early foothold in a labor movement that had doubts about him. Not surprisingly, McEntee became a White House favorite.

Fineman claims that Bill personally lobbied McEntee and had a lot to do with this endorsement.

Clearly any Democrat would love to get the AFSCME endorsement, and I'd be lying if I said I think it's irrelevant. Yet the largest union in Iowa's recent track record (Dean, Blouin) doesn't suggest that its foot soldiers can deliver the goods.

On Labor Day two women who are very involved in AFSCME in Iowa told me that there was strong support for Edwards and Obama as well as for Hillary within the union's ranks.

It will be interesting to see how much AFSCME is able to add to Hillary's ground game here.

Anyone out there know more about the inner workings of AFSCME in Iowa? How helpful do you think this endorsement will be?