Virginia Democrats threatened by Communications Union
By JR Hoeft | Tuesday, February 8th, 2011 | PolicyIn what has to be one of the most blatant displays of union strong-arming in recent memory, House Democratic Leader Ward Armstrong fails to answer questions from Del. Tim Hugo regarding this influence in the above video.
Democratic members of the House of Delegates were pressured by the Communications Workers of America (CWA) that money and manpower will be withheld from future campaigns if they don’t vote against a communications bill.
Hugo was offering a communications bill that had been passed out of committee with OVERWHELMING majority: 20-1.
Yet, suddenly, a letter materialized from Carol Summerlyn, a representative of the CWA and the Third District Democratic Committee to members of the Democratic caucus.
In the letter, Ms. Summerlyn says:
“I have been a strong Democrat since voting for McGovern in 1972. I am proud of my Democratic roots and the work I have done to promote Democratic principles. My union sisters and brothers have also worked tirelessly to elect Democrats, often making the difference in tight races. We conduct ‘Labor Walks’ going door to door on Saturdays, make thousands of phone calls and send tens of thousands of mail pieces to ensure like thinking Democrats will be elected.
“In return we expect full consideration for our issues. We do not expect those we have elected to turn their backs on our issues. Today the House Labor and Commerce Committee voted 19-1 to pass HB 2367, misnamed the Telecommunications Modernization Act….We did not expect to be abandoned by our friends.
“We are faced this year with an important election. I want to be sure we retain control of the Senate and increase our numbers in the House. CWA’s active participation in this fall’s election is being threatened by Democrats….It will be difficult to convince my members to give up their Saturdays and evenings to elect the very people who ignore our needs after the election is over. It will be nearly impossible for me to convince my boss to authorize the thousands of dollars we normally contribute to the party and individual candidates.[em. added]
….Please help me restore my members’ faith in the Democratic Party.”
Amazingly, 2819 Democratic votes against the bill materialized, when originally there was only 1 dissenting vote in a committee consisting of more than 20% of the House.
These members voted no.
NAYS–Abbott, Armstrong, Athey, BaCote, Brink, Bulova, Carr, Cleaveland, Cole, Crockett-Stark, Ebbin, Edmunds, Englin, Filler-Corn, Hope, James, Kory, Miller, P.J., Morefield, Morrissey, Orrock, Phillips, Pollard, Scott, J.M., Surovell, Tyler, Ward, Wright–28.
All Democrats. Apparently they got the message…and it has the union label.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
22 Responses to "Virginia Democrats threatened by Communications Union"
Dear Barely Adrift,
All Democrats? I count EIGHT Republicans on that list.
Love,
NLS
Strangely, my Delegate from District 35, Mark Keam (D-Verizon) did not vote against this but abstained. Conflict of interest or trying to fly below the radar on an anti-consumer vote?
HisRoc, Mark works for Verizon and always abstains on telecom votes.
As for the rest, I don’t see a problem with this. In fact, I am happy to see Labor standing up for what the believe in here. The Democrats are too willing to accept labor support and then ignore them when it is convenient. If they care about their constituencies, they deserve to listen when an issue is a big deal to them.
Dear NLS,
That’s what I get for rushing a post. Thanks for noticing and being a loyal reader of BD.
Of course, whether it’s 19 (Ward was already a nay) or 28, it does not take away from the fact that nearly half the Democratic Caucus suddenly found religion on this communications bill only after a letter from an irate union threatening to withhold manpower and money materialized.
19 Democrats heads turn on a swivel when Big Labor comes calling.
I’m sure they will all be justly rewarded at the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner…
I doubt it. I can tell you all this – labor is getting real tired of being taken for granted. Real tired. And it’s at all levels, not just the one I am at.
Not sure that labor has a real fix for it either. You can only justify paying someone $45/hr for the work you can get done overseas for a third of the cost plus shipping for so long…
In analyzing the votes from both the committee and on the floor, I noticed only one flip, and that was by Roslyn Tyler (D-75th). The measure still passed with over a 2/3rds majority.
It takes two to tango, Shaun. Management doesn’t have to sign those contracts.
“Big” Labor? Less than 10% of working Americans belong to these corrupt outfits. Takes two to tango? Not when one of the partners is an extortionist having no civil limits as to how it will achieve its goals. Its a great day when we can rely on a majority of legislators who have the gumption to act in the best interes of its citizens while ignoring the threats of a bunch of thugs.
*sigh* It’s like watching my home (New York State) all over again. The good news is that there were at least some Democrats that didn’t vote with them.
Ofnir,
I agree! We’re looking at Virginia following in New York’s footsteps. Difference is in New York the government sucks off commerce with tolls on the highways and in Virginia they are going to allow foreign investors do the sucking with 3P (Public Private Partnerships).
We here in Virginia think the wasteland that is New York is a fine example of what we want our state to become. Problem is that at least in New York, the money still stays in the United States.
@LD
I noticed the Tyler switch. In fact, I assumed in my original research that there would have been more committee members to flip. Kudos to them for not. Of course, had they, they would have been pilloried, and rightfully so, for being flip floppers.
Knowing the bill was going to pass anyway, and already having lost face with the CWA, it makes sense that they went ahead and voted in favor.
Those that still had a shot at “redeeming themselves” and the party with the CWA had to toe-the-line and vote against the bill, otherwise face the consequences of an angry labor union.
This is not a hard concept.
The bill had one person against it out of committee. Simple math says this thing was going to pass overwhelmingly…but suddenly, after the letter, Minority Leader Armstrong is against the bill and votes against it?
This is a losing argument for Dems in two ways – not only were some unduly influenced by the union, but Leader Armstrong could only whip up about half of his caucus to oppose it.
It’s always entertaining to watch Democrats heed their Master’s voice.
And Brian is right, to a degree: unions pay the piper in the Democrat Party, and it’s only appropriate that they call the tune. Of course, he’s wrong when he implies that the Democrat = union/Republican = management dichotomy is much more than a caricature. And he’s equally wrong when he describes union bosses “representing” less than 10% of the private-sector economy with “labor.” Most “labor” in this country is performed by people who have, and want to have, nothing to do with labor unions, Brian. It reflects union-boss arrogance to equate the two.
Of course, we know who pays YOUR piper.
James, I wish that labor had the influence you guys think we do. I wish that it was only this easy to get legislators and the executive to pay attention to our positions on issues that matter to us. What happened here was a happy exception to the norm. If you don’t think that’s the case, I can tell you that there are few folks in the labor movement who are happy with anything coming out of the White House these days.
I am well aware that most labor in this country is performed by folks who are not in a union – whether that is their choice or not is a big question, and you know full well that there are millions of workers who want to have a union and enjoy the benefits union workers enjoy but who can’t join them, for a variety of reasons. There’s nothing arrogant about that – it’s fact. The polling I’ve seen has numbers as high as 50%+ of workers who would vote for a union if they ever had the choice, which they often don’t.
And yes, we know who pays my piper – we also know who pays yours.
J.R., I just don’t see the undue influence here. It’s influence, but there is nothing undue about it. This is the kind of thing we want to see – members being responsive to their constituents. CWA has workers in every county of the Commonwealth. Putting down a marker that this is a big issue for them is one of the reasons they have a union to begin with – I don’t see anything inherently wrong about what happened here.
My father was a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. In the 50′s through 70′s if you didn’t pay your dues to the Union, it was hard to get work. He often talked back then of mafia involvement. This is an excerpt from the IBEW website.
http://www.ibew.org/IBEW/history/Form%20169%20-%20History%20and%20Structure.pdf
“The 1980s brought a conservative trend in the United
States led by right-wing zealots whose primary purpose was to increase the profits and wealth of the already-wealthy. To show his strength of purpose in the early stages of his administration in Washington, U.S. President Reagan fired every air traffic controller who participated in a strike called
by their union, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization. After executing the union, Reagan forbade hiring of the strikers to any federal government job. This initial incident set the stage for an anti-union philosophy that dominated labor-management relations until 1992.
Conservative thinkers also gained power in Canada and
achieved significant inroads in crippling the labor movement. In both countries wages stagnated and membership declined. In the United States the NLRB, through its supervision of certification elections, had a ruinous effect on organizing. The Department of
Labor became dedicated more to protecting business interests than to ensuring the rights of workers and their unions. Many of these businesses employed union-busting consultants to defeat union organizers and to decertify bargaining units.
Corporate executives’ salaries soared to obscene heights while workers suffered continual rollbacks in wages and even loss of their healthcare benefits. Unemployment grew as our domestic industries seemed unable to compete with their foreign counterparts. The manufacture of entire classes of electronic products moved offshore while still bearing the well-
recognized names of American corporations. This deindustrialization, plus technological change, caused the loss of tens of thousands of jobs for our manufacturing members. In 1982 the court-ordered divestiture of AT&T led to a decline in our telephone-industry membership, including devastating losses in manufacturing plants operated by that company.
During the ’80s nonunion electrical contractors gained a stronger foothold, eroding membership in our construction branch. While a proactive organizing campaign began to turn these losses around, the economy in the United States and Canada killed a promising building boom and inhibited membership growth. All these factors caused our membership to decline to fewer than 800,000 by the early 1990s.
Pundits, politicians and the general public have characterized the 1980s as the decade of greed. The beneficiaries of the largess of Presidents Reagan and Bush can hardly disprove this characterization, considering the workers who were left unemployed, many reduced to poverty and homelessness, by their political experiment of supply-side economics that made the wealthy even wealthier.”
Union strongholds have always been a Democratic Party family member.
Brian,
Ward Armstrong saw nothing wrong with this bill when it was in committee and only one Democrat voted against it.
Suddenly, he and others get a letter from a CWA rep who is also a leader in the Democratic Party of Virginia, that effectively says, “there’ll be hell to pay” and you think that’s not undue influence?
I’d love to see the reaction from the left if a special interest on the right made a similar threat to Repyublicans and suddenly Republicans peeled off and voted another way.
You say it’s politics – and I agree…the unseemly side. It is political extortion, which, apparently, is just part of the game.
JR, that’s how the process is supposed to work. When you assume something is innocuous and you don’t think there’s a problem with it, you vote for it. If, after that, a constituent comes and tells you he has a big problem with it – a problem big enough to cost his support – you take a look at it again. Even if it’s just one person. That’s how this whole process is supposed to work.
I don’t view this as political extortion at all. CWA is one union in the state, there are plenty of others who don’t care about this issue and won’t make a big deal if someone votes wrong on it.
I’m sure the Democrats would go after us if the NRA or AFP said the same thing to one of our candidates, and if they did I’d say the same thing to them.
Kathy,
I am sympathetic to the labor movement with many friends in the AFL-CIO. However, the citation you posted from the IBEW web site has got to be the most twisted and tortured version of 1980s history that I have ever read.
PATCO created the air traffic controller crisis, not Reagan. Long before Reagan was elected, PATCO had been sabotaging ATC operations with both overt work-to-rule slowdowns and with covert destruction of computer systems. If you are over 50 then you probably remember the news reports throughout the 70s of massive airline delays caused by “FAA computer problems.” Those computer problems were not software glitches but controller-induced failures. When Reagan was elected PATCO decided to take him on with a frontal assault. “They can’t fire all of us,” was the slogan of their illegal strike. Reagan issued an ultimatum: return to work as required by your collective bargaining agreement or forfeit your qualification to be a Federal employee.
As to how greedy business executives oppressed the workers in the 1980s, Jimmy Carter did far more damage to the middle class than Ronald Reagan ever could have done. Under Reagan, the economy saw the best improvement since the Eisenhower Administration. Prior to Reagan, the US economy suffered four recessions in just ten years. After Reagan, we had two recessions in 20 years with each one lasting only 8 months. The prime interest rate was 21.5% when Reagan was elected. It was 11% when he left office. Unemployment was 7.5% when Reagan took office. It was 5.3% when he left. Household median income, adjusted for inflation, rose 12% during the Reagan Administration.
I’m sorry, but the facts just do not support the IBEW version of history.
HisRoc, that’s why I posted it. Twisted version of the truth for sure and gladly someone else, you, caught it! But, if anyone of our grandchildren get on the web to do a paper for school that’s the “truth” they will read isn’t it?
Kathy,
Based on the recent scandal with Virginia school textbooks, wherein African slaves fought for the Confederacy, our children don’t have to get on the web to find bad history.
I was a history and political science dual major as an undergraduate. One of the first lessons that my professors beat into my adolescent, pointed little head was that if you wanted to study history objectively you must learn to research primary sources–and then know the editorial prejudice of the source. When I read something that just doesn’t ring true, my first reaction is to look up the facts that underpin the assertion. “Facts are stubborn things,” wrote John Adams.
Both ends of the political spectrum are fond of proclaiming their own version of reality. However, it has been my experience that the left is far more prone to misrepresentation and canards. The right tries to obviate the facts when they do not support their position. The left simply re-writes the inconvenient facts.
Coming late to this, but I’d also like to take a different tack. I’ll concede that conservative Republicans tend be anti-union, and that’s their right. But I think their accusations that one union leader’s letter to her delegate and other Virginia delegates was somehow an illegitimate attempt to influence a vote on legislation important to CWA members is hyperbolic and off base.
How was her – or any union – expressing their preferences about a bill any different from the Chamber of Commerce doing the same for their preferred legislation?
On a national level, the Chamber of Commerce spent millions of dollars to elect Republicans in the last election cycle. They also spent millions of dollars to defeat legislation they thought was detrimental to business interests. And they wrote letters and lobbied congressmen to let them know in no uncertain terms how they wanted them to vote if those congressmen wanted Chamber support.
I may certainly disagree with their positions, and want to debate them, but I would never accuse them of corruption and strong arming legislators and candidates. As citizens, it is their right to organize and to lobby for their interests. And I am sure most of you here would defend the Chamber from a left wing attack accusing them of inappropriate or threatening behavior towards elected officials.
Labor has the same right as the Chamber and various other pro business groups. Indeed, it’s the same right as any citizen has to engage their elected representatives and to express their preferences. That’s why it’s a democracy.
Brian Schoeneman is right. The system worked!
Leave your response