I heard the rumor, Civic Skinny heard the rumor, and now The Iowa Republican blog reports that Dave Funk will soon be the Republican nominee for supervisor in Polk County’s third district.

The two Republican Polk County supervisors aren’t up for re-election this year, and the GOP isn’t fielding candidates against Democratic supervisors John Mauro and Angela Connolly. As a result, the third district race between Funk and two-term incumbent Tom Hockensmith will determine control of the five-member board of supervisors. Democrats have had a majority on that body for decades.

Without question, Funk is the best candidate Republicans could have recruited for this race. Two pictures tell that story after the jump.

John Deeth attended the League of Women Voters’ forum in Coralville on Saturday, and he buried an interesting nugget toward the end of his liveblog:

Chris Bonfig asks about HF 2420; Mascher, Dvorsky, Schmitz, Lensing, Bolkcom yes; Jacoby, Marek no. Jacby: “The first part of the bill is marvelous, the [second] part needs some work.”

House file 2420, formerly known as House Study Bill 702, is the reworked “fair share” legislation. The idea behind “fair share” is that employees who don’t belong to a union would have to reimburse the union for services provided, such as collective bargaining and handling grievances. A “fair share” bill passed the Iowa Senate in 2007 but stalled in the Iowa House, where the Democratic majority was 53-47 at the time. The current Democratic majority is 56-44, but none of organized labor’s legislative priorities passed during the 2009 legislative session because of opposition from a “six-pack” of House Democrats.

This year’s “fair share” proposal has been scaled back and would apply only to state employees. (Many labor advocates agree with Iowa AFL-CIO president emeritus Mark Smith, who has argued that the measure should apply to all private sector and public sector unions.) Iowa Republicans and business groups are fiercely opposing “fair share,” even though it would not apply to private businesses.

State Representative Dave Jacoby represents a relatively safe district in Johnson County. If he just announced at a public forum that he’s not backing HF 2420, I don’t see much chance of the “six-pack” members supporting the bill. That would leave House Democrats short of the 51 votes needed for passage.

When Jacoby praised the first part of the bill but not the second part, he appeared to be supporting reimbursement for grievance services but not for bargaining services, which are more costly for the union to provide. Click here for the full text of HF 2420. It states that “reasonable reimbursement” for bargaining services “shall not exceed sixty-five percent of the regular membership dues that the nonmember would have to pay if the nonmember were a member” of the union. The bill caps reimbursement for grievance services at ten percent of the union’s regular membership dues.

In February, Iowa House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy suggested that a new “prevailing wage” bill is more likely to pass this session than “fair share.” In 2009 the “six-pack” sank a prevailing wage bill, but this year House Labor Committee Chairman Rick Olson prepared a compromise version that would require payment of prevailing wage on a smaller number of projects. Olson told the Cedar Rapids Gazette that the “softer” version of the prevailing wage bill addresses the objections raised last year by conservative House Democrats.

Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.

Last Thursday, the Iowa Senate approved a bill that would improve the health and well-being of Iowa working mothers and their children. In addition, this bill would reduce many employers’ health care costs while lowering employee turnover and absenteeism. Unlike legislation that pits business interests against the needs of working families, this bill would be a win-win.

Nevertheless, almost the whole Republican caucus voted against Senate File 2270, which promotes workplace accommodations for employees who express breast milk.

Follow me after the jump for background on this bill and Republican opposition to it.

Senator Tom Harkin and Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire introduced a resolution yesterday that would change the Senate’s rules on filibusters:

the first vote on a cloture motion – which ends a filibuster – would require 60 votes to proceed, the next would be two days later and require 57. This process would repeat itself until the number fell to 51, or a simple majority.

The idea is to restore the filibuster to its original use (delaying passage of a bill) as opposed to its current use by Republicans (to impose a super-majority requirement for every Senate action). The authors of the Constitution never intended to make the Senate unable to act without the consent of 60 percent of its members. But Republicans used the filibuster more times in 2009 than it was used during the entire period from 1949 to 1970.

However, an unofficial whip count shows Democrats very far from having enough votes to change the filibuster rules. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in effect took the issue off the table yesterday.

Also yesterday, Harkin advised President Obama to use recess appointments for dozens of nominees whom Republicans have been holding up. Unfortunately, the White House announced that the president will not use his recess appointment powers for now, because the Senate confirmed 27 out of more than 60 nominees Republicans are holding up. (The list of those 27 nominees is here.) Although Obama’s statement reserves the right to make recess appointments in the future, he should not have taken that off the table as long as Senate Republicans continue to hold dozens of nominees in limbo.

One of the most controversial nominees is Craig Becker. A February 9 filibuster blocked his appointment to the National Labor Relations Board, because Becker is supposedly too pro-labor. President George W. Bush used recess appointments to name seven of his nine appointees to the NLRB. Of course, they were all anti-labor. It’s past time to bring balance to that board.

UPDATE: Senator Dick Durbin supports Harkin’s filibuster reform efforts. A “senior leadership aide” told Greg Sargent that Durbin is “in talks with a number of other Democratic senators regarding possible changes to Senate rules.”

SECOND UPDATE: A new CBS/New York Times poll found 50 percent of respondents said the filibuster should not remain in place, while 44 percent said they should. I think with more education of the public about how the filibuster obstructs progress, support for changing the rules would grow.

The Des Moines Register dinged Governor Chet Culver recently for not scheduling as many press conferences and public appearances as Terry Branstad and Tom Vilsack did as governor, but Culver’s been active around the state since he submitted his draft budget to the legislature last week.

Lots of links are after the jump, along with an update on Jonathan Narcisse, who supported Culver in 2006 but recently launched his own gubernatorial campaign.

UPDATE: The Iowa House passed this bill on a party-line vote on Friday, and Culver signed it the same day.

Democratic state legislators are rushing to pass a bill that will allow Iowa to apply for a federal education grant of up to $175 million. The application is due on Tuesday, and Monday is Martin Luther King Jr. day, so Governor Chet Culver needs to be able to sign the bill this weekend.

The Iowa Senate approved Senate File 2033 on Wednesday. Senate Education Committee Chair Becky Schmitz summarized key provisions relating to the “Race to the Top” grant:

Specifically, the legislation before you today will:

   *     Remove the cap and repeal date for charter schools in Iowa.  Currently, Iowa Code has a 20 charter school cap and a repeal date for all charter schools on July 1, 2011.  […]

   *     Allow schools to develop Innovation Zone Schools and Consortiums -This legislation adds innovation zone schools and consortiums to the ways that schools districts can foster innovation in more schools.

Senate Republicans voted against this bill, and House Republicans will do the same when it’s considered today. They want to see Iowa relax current restrictions on who can operate a charter school. Additionally, they argue that it’s unwise to apply for one-time federal funds to support ongoing education expenses. The GOP talking point of choice is to call this bill “Race for the Cash.”

Republicans also claim the bill would shift authority toward “union bosses” because of provisions that are not directly linked to the federal grant application. More on that story is after the jump.

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.

I expected 2009 to be a relatively quiet year in Iowa politics, but was I ever wrong.

The governor’s race heated up, state revenues melted down, key bills lived and died during the legislative session, and the Iowa Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in Varnum v Brien became one of this state’s major events of the decade.

After the jump I’ve posted links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage of Iowa politics from January through June 2009. Any comments about the year that passed are welcome in this thread.

Although I wrote a lot of posts last year, there were many important stories I didn’t manage to cover. I recommend reading Iowa Independent’s compilation of “Iowa’s most overlooked and under reported stories of 2009,” as well as that blog’s review of “stories that will continue to impact Iowa in 2010.”

Following up on the diary I posted this morning, this post compiles links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage of national politics from July through December 2009. Health care reform was again the number one topic. I wish there had been a happy ending.

It took me a week longer than I anticipated, but I finally finished compiling links to Bleeding Heartland’s coverage from last year. This post and part 2, coming later today, include stories on national politics, mostly relating to Congress and Barack Obama’s administration. Diaries reviewing Iowa politics in 2009 will come soon.

One thing struck me while compiling this post: on all of the House bills I covered here during 2009, Democrats Leonard Boswell, Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack voted the same way. That was a big change from 2007 and 2008, when Blue Dog Boswell voted with Republicans and against the majority of the Democratic caucus on many key bills.

No federal policy issue inspired more posts last year than health care reform. Rereading my earlier, guardedly hopeful pieces was depressing in light of the mess the health care reform bill has become. I was never optimistic about getting a strong public health insurance option through Congress, but I thought we had a chance to pass a very good bill. If I had anticipated the magnitude of the Democratic sellout on so many aspects of reform in addition to the public option, I wouldn’t have spent so many hours writing about this issue. I can’t say I wasn’t warned (and warned), though.

Links to stories from January through June 2009 are after the jump. Any thoughts about last year’s political events are welcome in this thread.

Hope you’ve been enjoying the perfect Iowa weather during this holiday weekend. The U.S. Department of Labor and Blog for Iowa provide background on the history of Labor Day.

Organized labor doesn’t have a lot to celebrate right now, with more job losses in the manufacturing sector and unemployment rising across the country (though Iowa’s unemployment rate is significantly lower than the national average). The Iowa Policy Project finds that “the state of working Iowa” is not good. As in the previous recession, we are losing jobs with good benefits as wages stagnate for the people who still have jobs. We now rank 32nd in terms of median wages, and lower incomes mean less money for consumers to spend at other businesses. Click here for the full report, which also explains that “policy makers could do more to make work pay for low- and moderate-income working families and to insist upon job-quality requirements in economic development strategies.”  

Iowa hasn’t adopted most of organized labor’s key legislative priorities in recent years, in part because of the “six-pack” of Iowa House Democrats that blocked those bills. On the plus side, Curt Hanson’s victory in the House district 90 special election means we haven’t lost any ground on this front. We only need to persuade one or two “six-pack members” (or defeat them in Democratic primaries) to find the 51st vote for “prevailing wage,” for instance.

I haven’t heard much lately about Senator Tom Harkin’s efforts to find a compromise on the Employee Free Choice Act. Getting 60 votes in the Senate for anything meaningful is likely to be quite difficult. The Service Employees International Union has some news related to the EFCA here.

Two years ago I attended the Solidarity Fest Labor Day celebration in Des Moines, featuring John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. The same event, sponsored by the South Central Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, takes place today in the 4-H building at the State Fairgrounds from noon to 2 pm. Later today, the Friends of Iowa Midwives are having a family-friendly potluck picnic at Raccoon River park in West Des Moines (4 to 8 pm, suggested donation $5).

After the jump I’ve posted details for lots of other events coming up this week.

The customer is always right.

As Ben Smith reported at Politico last week, several large labor unions are questioning investment fund managers about their stance on the Employee Free Choice Act:

“Has your company made any public statements in support or opposition to EFCA?” asks one of nine pointed questions in a polite, detailed four-page questionnaire.

“If ‘Yes,’ please explain.”

The detailed questionnaire has three parts. The first asks about fund managers’ public positions, lobbying and political contributions. The second asks managers to “disclose any relationships during the past five years between your company and any organization(s) opposing the passage” of EFCA. The form lists 14 organizations, from anti-EFCA organizations like the Workforce Fairness Institute to trade groups that oppose it, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Roundtable.

Here’s a pdf file of the questionnaire. More on the whining after the jump.

The Iowa House adjourned for the year a little after 5 am today, and the Iowa Senate adjourned a few minutes before 6 am. I’ll write more about what happened and didn’t happen in the next day or two, but I wanted to put up this thread right away so people can share their opinions.

Several major bills passed during the final marathon days in which legislators were in the statehouse chambers nearly all night on Friday and Saturday. The most important were the 2010 budget and an infrastructure bonding proposal. Legislators also approved new restrictions on the application of manure on frozen or snow-covered ground. Another high-profile bill that made it through changes restrictions on convicted sex offenders.

Several controversial bills did not pass for lack of a 51st vote in the Iowa House, namely a tax reform plan that would have ended federal deductibility and key legislative priorities for organized labor.

Not surprisingly, last-minute Republican efforts to debate a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage also failed.

More details and some preliminary analysis are after the jump.

The phone rang early Tuesday evening, and the voice on the other end was an interviewer conducting a survey for Hill Research Consultants. I asked who commissioned the survey, but the interviewer said he didn’t know.

Judging from the type of questions and their wording, I assume this poll was commissioned either by a Republican considering a run for governor in 2010, a Republican interest group trying to decide what kind of candidate to support for 2010, or the Republican Party of Iowa itself.

As I always do whenever I am surveyed, I grabbed a something to write with and took as many notes as I could about the questions. However, it was a long poll and there was commotion in the background on my end, so I know I didn’t get all the questions down. If you have been a respondent in the same survey and can fill in some blanks, please post a comment in this thread or e-mail me (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com).

My notes on the questions asked during this 15-20 minute survey are after the jump. These are paraphrased, but I tried to remember the wording as closely as I could. I don’t know whether the order of the suggested answers was the same for everyone, but since this sounded like a real poll, I assume the order of multiple-choice answers was rotated.

I saw on Talking Points memo’s DC Wire that Senator Tom Harkin is sounding out Republican colleagues on a potential compromise for the Employee Free Choice Act, according to Roll Call. The Republican leadership will certainly try to filibuster this bill, and Democrats do not currently have 60 votes in favor. Some weaselly Democrats who voted for the EFCA in 2007 (knowing President Bush would veto it) are hedging now. In addition, Republican Senator Arlen Specter, who has supported the EFCA in the past, has flipped on the issue in light of a primary challenge from the right.

CEOs from three companies (Costco, Whole Foods and Starbucks) proposed a compromise on the EFCA recently. Harkin and other leading Democrats are not willing to accept that proposal for various reasons. For one thing, it would not include binding arbitration.

Earlier this month, Harkin had an excellent response to Republican critics who say we can’t afford to help labor unions now:

“In 1935, we passed the Wagner Act that promoted unionization and allowed unions to flourish, and at the time we were at around 20 percent unemployment. So tell me again why we can’t do this in a recession?” said  Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), invoking the pro-labor changes of the New Deal. “This is the time to do it. This is exactly the time we should be insisting on a fairer playing field for people to organize themselves.”

The Center for American Progress Action Fund created this outstanding web page supporting the Employee Free Choice Act. You’ll find many useful resources there, including a basic overview of what the EFCA would and would not do and an interactive map showing why unions are good for workers and the economy.

I clicked on Iowa and learned, “Union workers in Iowa make 8.40 percent ($1.48 per hour) more than non-union workers, on average.” (Click here and scroll down the page to see how the Center for Economic Policy Research calculated those figures.) Higher wages are not only good for individual families, they boost the economy as a whole consumer spending drives so much economic activity.

I am pessimistic about the prospects for passing the EFCA this year, but I give Harkin credit for trying to find a compromise that would still make it significantly easier for workers to form unions.

Happy Spring, Bleeding Heartland readers! There’s a lot happening this week, and I’ve posted the events after the jump.

Post a comment or send me an e-mail (desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com) if you know of something good happening that I’ve left out.

If you live within striking distance of Iowa City, there’s a benefit for the Iowa Renewable Energy Association tonight at the Mill (details below).

The “prevailing wage” bill fiasco finally ended on Monday:

In what officials called the longest vote in Iowa Statehouse history, House Speaker Pat Murphy at 1:09 p.m. today closed the voting machine on the prevailing wage bill after 2 days, 19 hours and 14 minutes, declaring the bill had lost.

The vote was 50-48, one vote short of passage. But then House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines, switched his vote to “no” — a procedural move that will allow him to bring the bill up for reconsideration later this session. So the final vote stood at 49-49.

After the jump I consider the two eternal political questions: “What is to be done?” and “Who is to blame?”

The “prevailing wage” bill, one of organized labor’s top legislative priorities, stalled in the Iowa House on Friday as Democrats were unable to find a 51st vote. Apparently the plan is to try to twist someone’s arm over the weekend:

House Speaker Pat Murphy will keep the voting machine open the entire weekend until Democrats can convince one of their dissenting members to change their vote. The move will mean Murphy will have to sleep in the chamber over the weekend.

“I want to be sure that taxpayer money is going to responsible Iowa employers who pay a decent wage, not employers who take advantage of people like we’ve seen in Postville and Atalissa,” Murphy said. “As the presiding officer of the House, I will stay in the Speaker’s chair and the voting machine will remain open until Monday. My goal is to get 51 votes and make sure we have good-paying jobs for middle class families.”

This post is not about the merits of the bill, which I support. (Click here for background on House file 333, which “would require that companies that contract for public projects pay workers wages and benefits comparable to private projects in the area.”)

This post is about why Democratic House leaders now face two unappealing outcomes: either they fail to pass a good bill supported by a key Democratic constituency, or they force one of their members into an embarrassing about-face that could affect the next election campaign.

Further thoughts on this mess are after the jump.

The U.S. Senate confirmed Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary today by a vote of 60 to 34, but as you can see from the roll call, both of Iowa’s senators voted no.

Grassley was joined by 29 other Republicans. He voted against Geithner in the Senate Finance Committee a few days ago, citing the nominee’s failure to fully meet his tax obligations during some previous years.

Harkin was one of only three Senate Democrats to vote against confirming Geithner. According to the Des Moines Register,

Harkin voiced concerns about Geithner’s failure to pay some income taxes several years ago, amounting to about $34,000. […]

Harkin also said Geithner was at fault for how some of the $700-billion financial rescue money, authorized by Congress in October, was spent. Harkin voted for the bailout, but said later he would have voted against it had he known the money would go to banks, rather than to buy bad loans.

Geithner was a key figure in the crafting and administering of the money as the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In the post, Geithner also was partly to blame for the financial meltdown, which stemmed from inadequate regulation, Harkin argued.

“Mr. Geithner made serious errors of judgment in failing to pay his taxes, and he made serious errors in his job as chief regulator of the financial institutions at the heart of the current financial crisis,” Harkin said in a statement released after the vote.

I am surprised that so many senators voted against Geithner. I stand by my opinion that if he were not a white male, the tax problems would have sunk his nomination.

Speaking of Senate confirmations, some Republican has reportedly put an anonymous hold on the nomination of Hilda Solis as Labor Secretary. I called Grassley’s office today, and a staffer told me it wasn’t him.

Will President Barack Obama go to the mat to get Solis confirmed? Will the Republicans filibuster this strong supporter of workers’ rights and the Employee Free Choice Act?

I had assumed that Attorney-General designee Eric Holder would be the cabinet appointment most fiercely opposed by Republicans, but perhaps it will be Solis.

UPDATE: Geithner’s actions during his first day on the job are not encouraging. I believe he will turn out to be one of Obama’s worst appointments.

Barack Obama promised during his presidential campaign to “finally make the Employee Free Choice Act the law of the land.”

So why did I read this in today’s Washington Post?

The president-elect also gave his support for legislation that would make it easier for workers to unionize, but he said there may be other ways to achieve the same goal without angering businesses. And while many Democrats on Capitol Hill are eager to see a quick vote on that bill, he indicated no desire to rush into the contentious issue.

“If we’re losing half a million jobs a month, then there are no jobs to unionize, so my focus first is on those key economic priority items I just mentioned,” he said. “Let’s see what the legislative docket looks like.”

Marc Ambinder has the exact wording of Obama’s answer, which the Washington Post paraphrased.

A lot of labor unions backed Obama during the primaries, and even more backed him during the general election campaign. Unions were there for Obama when he needed them. Now, they need him to follow through on his promise.

This diary by TomP lays out the very strong case for passing the Employee Free Choice Act.

Why do we need to dance around looking for some way to help unions without angering businesses? Obama won the election and has high approval ratings. Democrats enlarged their Congressional majorities. Now is the time for the president to spend his political capital on getting good laws through Congress.

Setting the policy merits aside for the moment, this is a poor negotiating strategy.

By announcing before taking office that his goal is to help unions without arousing intense opposition from businesses, Obama has just given the business lobby every incentive to raise hell about even the most innocuous bill to support workers’ rights.

He should not have telegraphed that he is willing to sacrifice the Employee Free Choice Act if necessary. You never announce before negotiations begin what concessions you are willing to make. (For more on Obama’s negotiating strategy so far, read this diary by bruh3.)

In any event, there isn’t going to be some magical bill that would make it significantly easier for workers to organize, but which the business lobby would take in stride. They will fight every bill perceived as pro-labor, and they will claim that it will cost jobs, just like they fought any number of good laws, from minimum wage increases to the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Here’s hoping that incoming Labor Secretary Hilda Solis (a passionate supporter of the EFCA) will be able to strengthen Obama’s resolve to fight for this bill.

By the way, American Rights at Work just launched a major tv advertising campaign in support of the EFCA and has a petition you can sign if you care about this issue.

I keep hearing chatter about a possible primary challenge to Governor Chet Culver in 2010. This scenario strikes me as extremely unlikely, but I want to encourage others to weigh in on this comment thread.

Running a statewide primary campaign is expensive. Who has the money for that? I can’t think of any self-funding candidate who would step up to challenge Culver. Anyone else have names in mind?

Organized labor has money and is unhappy with the governor, largely because he vetoed a collective-bargaining bill during the 2008 legislative session.

But most labor unions supported Mike Blouin in the 2006 primary, and their backing wasn’t enough to defeat Culver before he was an incumbent. Culver will go into the next campaign with huge institutional advantages he didn’t have as the secretary of state.

It would seem more logical for organized labor to continue the strategy they adopted this year: focus their political giving on statehouse candidates likely to support their agenda. If Culver continues to disappoint, simply don’t donate to his re-election campaign. That is cheaper than spending lots of money on a primary challenger.

I think there’s a decent chance the 56 Democrats who will be in the Iowa House in 2009 will be able to pass either “fair share” legislation (which would weaken Iowa’s right-to-work law) or a collective-bargaining bill like the one Culver vetoed. Getting those bills through the new Senate will be no problem. As I’ve written before, Culver supports fair share, and it wasn’t his fault it couldn’t get through the House in 2007. I also doubt Culver would veto a collective-bargaining bill a second time.

If labor unions decide to go all out against Culver, who could they find? I can’t think of many politicians with enough stature to pull this off. A few people have named sitting legislators in conversations with me, but I find it hard to believe any of them would take that risk. Look how the Democratic establishment reacted when Ed Fallon challeged the thoroughly mediocre Leonard Boswell in the third district Congressional primary.

Anyway, none of the current leadership in the House and Senate would be likely to win the support of other Democrats who have their own reasons for being disappointed with Culver. For instance, environmentalists who wish the governor would back agricultural zoning at the county level (also known as “local control” of CAFOs) have gotten zero help from statehouse leaders since Democrats regained the majority. Ditto for liberals who want to see the legislature adopt campaign finance reform (the Voter-Owned Iowa Clean Elections act).

One person suggested to me that a primary challenger would not be able to defeat Culver, but could damage him enough to cost us the governor’s chair in 2010. I find this scenario unlikely as well. Let’s say organized labor backs someone like Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal for governor. I don’t think he will run against Culver, I’m just throwing out his name because he is well known and could raise a significant amount of money. He hasn’t put muscle behind local control or clean elections–on the contrary, he insulted a group of activists who came to the capitol in April 2007 to lobby for the VOICE act. I don’t see him getting enough traction in a primary campaign to do real damage. If anything, he could help Culver with swing voters in the general election, by showing that the big, bad “special interests” are unhappy with the governor.

I don’t mean to sound complacent. The Republican Party of Iowa is bruised and divided now but could rebound by 2010 with the right gubernatorial candidate. More important, the fiscal outlook is terrible at both the national and state level. That and other continuing economic problems pose a much bigger threat to Culver’s re-election than the prospect of a Democratic primary challenger.

What do you think?

MissLaura put up this front-page post at Daily Kos today about why unions matter. She linked to Change to Win, which has all kinds of useful statistics on its website. Click the link to find charts illustrating that “Union Workers Earn More,” “Union Members Have Better Benefits,” “Union Members Pay Less for Health Coverage,” and so on.

If Barack Obama becomes president, I hope he will follow through on promises to make it easier for workers to organize in this country. Replacing some of the corporate hacks George Bush has put on the National Labor Relations Board would be a step in the right direction. The Bush administration has used the NLRB to carry out a “systematic assault on workers’ rights.”

In the good news column, Shai Sachs reported in this post at MyDD that union membership appears to be slowly inching up, reversing a long decline.

But remember, just being in a union doesn’t guarantee that a worker will receive promised benefits. As I wrote a few weeks ago, Maytag retirees are probably going to lose health benefits guaranteed in their last contract. On the other hand, if they hadn’t been in a union, it’s a good bet they never would have had those benefits to begin with.

If you were negotiating an employment agreement, you might consider taking an outstanding benefits package in exchange for a lower starting salary or a wage freeze. How would you feel if many years later, in retirement, some of those benefits were taken away from you?

About 3,000 former Maytag workers and family members have received letters from Whirlpool this week informing them that they are about to get cheated. Here’s the background:

Whirlpool Corp. has filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to cut the medical benefits of thousands of retired Maytag workers.

The lawsuit, dated July 24 and filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in Des Moines as a class action complaint, names the international and local chapters of the United Auto Workers union and three retired Maytag workers as representatives of the class. […]

Whirlpool bought rival Maytag in 2006 for $1.7 billion and assumed the negotiated union contracts and related benefit plans. […]

Whirlpool said in the lawsuit that a contract negotiated between the union and Maytag in 2004 expires on July 31. Whirlpool said it plans to change the retiree medical benefits on Jan. 1, 2009, to bring the benefits in line with the same plan that more than 10,000 current employees, retirees and their dependents have.

I hope that Whirlpool’s lawsuit will fail, but unfortunately, the federal bench is so full of Republican-appointed judges that I don’t expect much in the way of protection for union members.

Barack Obama released this statement today in connection with the controversy:

Des Moines, Iowa – Below is a statement from Senator Barack Obama on the letter Whirlpool sent to Maytag union retirees this week about changes in their health benefits.

“In America, we believe that if you work hard, you should be able to build a better life for yourself and your family.  But today, this American dream is slipping out of reach for too many working Americans. Whirlpool’s decision to cut the health care benefits of 2,200 Maytag retirees is the latest sign that we need to change the broken system in Washington.  

“It’s not right that Maytag’s CEO walked away with a multi-million dollar buyout while the hardworking men and women who built the company lost their jobs and are now facing health care cuts. I’ve had the privilege of meeting with Maytag workers in Newton, and I know they negotiated those benefits in good faith, giving up pay increases and other benefits.  Now it is time for Whirlpool to show good faith to their former employees.  

“As President, I will fight for our workers every day because when our workers do well, America does well.  In the Senate, I’ve fought to protect pensions, and I will continue that fight in the White House.  I will make sure our workers get the fair wages, affordable health care, and secure retirement that they deserve.  And I’ll change our tax code so it rewards companies that create jobs here in the United States instead of companies that ship jobs overseas. I’ll be a President who looks out for Main Street, not just Wall Street and who fights to put the American Dream within reach for every American.”

I certainly hope Obama will work to strengthen labor unions and workers’ rights in this country if he gets elected.

But ultimately, Whirlpool’s action is yet another indictment of our health care system. Even Americans who have good employer-based health insurance can get screwed.

To get more informed about the failures of our current health care system and the benefits of moving to a single-payer “Medicare for all” model, read nyceve’s diaries at Daily Kos or the Guaranteed Healthcare group blog.

At Guaranteed Healthcare, you can also find a list of Democratic candidates for Congress who have endorsed HR 676, which would establish a single-payer health care system.

There’s big news today for those who have been working toward “blue-green alliances” between organized labor and environmental groups.

Thanks to this Daily Kos diary by TomP, I learned that Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa has pulled the union out of an alliance supporting more oil drilling in environmentally sensitive areas:

“We are not going to drill our way out of the energy problems we are facing-not here and not in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” Hoffa told labor and environmental activists at an Oakland, Calif., summit on good jobs and clean air. “We must find a long-term approach that breaks our dependence on foreign oil by investing in the development of alternate energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal power.”

Hoffa then announced the union’s withdrawal from the ANWR coalition, citing the need to build a green economy that fosters the development of alternative energy sources and creates good union jobs-instead of lining the pockets of big oil tycoons.

Hoffa also said that by investing in green energy solutions, the nation will reap the benefits of curbing its dependence on oil through a revitalized economy with the creation of millions of new jobs in a rapidly growing industry.

The Sierra Club and United Steelworkers forged a “Blue-Green Alliance” in 2006 and jointly endorsed Barack Obama for president at an event in Ohio last month.

But the Teamsters have been strong supporters of expanding oil drilling in the past. I never thought I’d see the day when Jim Hoffa pulled out of the ANWR coalition.

The battle over proposed coal-fired power plants has strained relations between labor unions and environmental advocates in Iowa this year. Today’s news gives me hope that in the future we will see more cooperation between those groups in promoting a forward-looking energy policy.

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.

I got an e-mail from Congressman Leonard Boswell’s campaign today touting another union endorsement:

                                                                                                              CONTACT: Betsy Shelton  

May 6, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                               515-238-3356

Iowa Steelworkers Endorse Congressman Boswell

Des Moines, IA – The United Steelworkers (USW) Iowa District 11 announced their endorsement of Congressman Leonard Boswell today.  “I am honored to receive the support of the United Steelworkers in Iowa,” said Congressman Boswell.  “I will continue my fight to improve the lives of working families across the state of Iowa.”

“Congressman Boswell has long been a friend of the United Steelworkers in Iowa.  With his seniority, it is important to have continuity and leadership representing Iowans,” said Randy Boulton, sub-director of USW District 11.  “The working families of USW wholeheartedly endorse Congressman Boswell.”

The United Steelworkers Iowa District 11 represents 8,000 members across the state of Iowa.

It’s not clear how many steelworkers in Iowa live in the third district.

I have to laugh every time the Boswell campaign brags about his seniority. As I wrote earlier this year,

Several campaign communications from Boswell have touted his ranking by Knowlegis as the 135th most powerful member of the U.S. House. They point out that this makes Boswell “more powerful than nearly 70 percent” of the members of Congress.

To put this in perspective, I looked up the whole class of 1996 as ranked by Knowlegis. Of the 47 House representatives first elected in that year who still serve, 31 were Democrats. Boswell ranks exactly in the middle of that group; 15 House Democrats first elected in 1996 are more powerful than he is, according to Knowlegis, and 15 are less powerful.

Digging further into the Knowlegis rankings, I found that 15 House Democrats first elected in 1998 are more powerful than Boswell, seven House Democrats first elected in 2000 are more powerful than Boswell, eight House Democrats first elected in 2002 are more powerful than Boswell (including Rahm Emanuel and Chris Van Hollen), eight House Democrats first elected in 2004 are more powerful than Boswell, and three House Democrats first elected in 2006 are more powerful than Boswell.

I don’t mean to discount Boswell’s efforts on behalf of his constituents. But let’s not kid ourselves–it’s not as if Fallon is challenging the Ways and Means Committee chairman, whose level of influence in Congress could not be matched for many years.

Moreover, continuity in terms of Boswell’s voting habits is exactly what I don’t want from my representative. His “progressive score,” as calculated by Progressive Punch, leaves a lot to be desired.

In a few moments, I will sign three agreements that will complete our negotiations with Mexico and Canada to create a North American Free Trade Agreement. In the coming months, I will submit this pact to Congress for approval. It will be a hard fight, and I expect to be there with all of you every step of the way. We will make our case as hard and as well as we can. And though the fight will be difficult, I deeply believe we will win. And I’d like to tell you why: first of all, because NAFTA means jobs American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement.

– Former President Bill Clinton speech on NAFTA, Sept. 13, 1993

Well, that didn’t work out so well for us, did it? In fact, third party presidential candidate Ross Perot was more accurate when he described NAFTA as a “giant sucking sound.” So what’s up with the Peru Free Trade Agreement currently being pushed through Congress? Is it more of the same?

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?

I read over at MyDD that the Iowa chapter of the SEIU is going to endorse John Edwards this Monday afternoon. The diarist also said the California SEIU will endorse Edwards, although that seems less clear from the link:

http://www.mydd.com/…

I don't know how many members SEIU has in Iowa. Clearly it's not the major player that AFSCME is. Still, the endorsement will be welcomed, especially if the NH and CA chapters follow through.

In the comments below the MyDD diary, people are debating whether the California chapter of SEIU would be able to send people to help the Edwards campaign in Iowa, even in the absence of a national SEIU endorsement.

In other news, Tracy Joan of the Edwards campaign put this link up at MyDD's Breaking Blue, in response to the claim that Edwards “lives” in Iowa:

http://www.swamppoli…

If you click through, you will learn that surprisingly, Obama has spent almost as many days campaigning in Iowa this year as Edwards, and Clinton is not far behind.