Obama, Democrats Deal Setback to Airline & Railroad Workers. 36 Democrats vote for anti-labor bill

[Better Believe It]

36 Senate Democrats joined 38 Senate Republicans in voting for this anti-union legislation. Isn't bi-partisanship wonderful! This vote proves once again that bi-partisan cooperation is possible .... when it comes to attacking the rights and benefits of working people. The proposed 26 week reduction in the federal unemployment benefits extension is yet another example of the great things that can be accomplished in Congress with a little bi-partisan give and take ..... the Democrats give and the Republicans take. BBI



Obama, Democrats Deal Setback to Airline Workers
By Theresa Moran
February 15, 2012

Two years after President Obama and Democrats abandoned labor’s much-anticipated Employee Free Choice Act, they have refused to block Republicans intent on making life miserable for airline and rail workers.

A bill reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration, voted up 75-20 in the Senate, changes federal labor law to make organizing more difficult for railroad and airline unions. New rules will make it easier to decertify unions and harder to win elections when employers merge.

Only 14 Senate Democrats stood with labor to oppose the measure in a February 6 vote. One independent and five Republicans also voted against the bill.

Candice Johnson of the Communications Workers, which represents flight attendants, said the fact that so few Democrats voted against the bill, “is amazing—and horrible. They made the wrong choice.”

Read the full article at:

http://labornotes.org/2012/02/obama-democrats-deal-setback-airline-workers

Here's the Senate roll call vote:


Vote Counts:

YEAs
75

NAYs
20

Not Voting
5


YEAs ---75

Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Baucus (D-MT)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Rubio (R-FL)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)


NAYs ---20

Akaka (D-HI)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Brown (D-OH)
Cardin (D-MD)
Casey (D-PA)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lee (R-UT)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Sanders (I-VT)
Stabenow (D-MI)


Not Voting - 5
Barrasso (R-WY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Hatch (R-UT)
Kirk (R-IL)
Vitter (R-LA)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00015

[msongs]

1. gee maybe our worker-loving president will veto this corporate lobbyists' fantasy? yeah, right nt

[roguevalley]

11. I;ve know the begichs for years. get this. his brothers are

union organizers. The fucker.

[Scootaloo]

1. Obama hasn't been a senator for a while now

Might want to update accordingly

[white_wolf]

4. Let's see if he veto's this bill then.

If he does, great. Otherwise he is just as guilty as the other Democrats who voted for it.

[Better Believe It]

6. Obama supported the bill. He signed it on Tuesday.

But, I suppose you could suggest that his signing it into law without objection has nothing to do with the bill becoming law or his opinion on the legislation.

However, one might think that's political spin detached from reality!

[izquierdista]

3. But Lily Ledbetter!

The Supreme Court. You have to have 60 votes to get it through the Senate. These things take time. Eat your peas. Did I mention that your children can stay on your health insurance longer? Why do you want the Republicans to win?

[white_wolf]

5. The Supreme Court argument is the only one of those I find remotly compelling.

Even then, I don't think it is a great reason, because he hasn't appointed great Justices, his picks are decent, but they aren't Earl Warren or Thrugood Marshall. I know you were just being sarcastic, but I felt like replying. Consider it practice for when we actually do hear those arguments very soon.

[great white snark]

21. Don't even bother reasoning w/that poster-I think Obama bopped his partner and killed his pet.

Professional victim IMHO.

[jsmirman]

23. I think they're pretty damn good so far

I'm on the "disgusted by the lack of support for labor" side of this, but just wanted to respond on Sotomayor and Kagan. I think their nominations are two of the better things he's done.

[white_wolf]

26. They aren't bad.

I guess, I'm just jealous of the Right getting Scalai and Thomas, if the Right can get people like them, why do we have to get moderates? Again, they aren't bad, I'd just like a more leftist Justice to counter Scalia's insanity.

[jsmirman]

33. I understand, it's just if somehow, some way we could get to five

things would still be so much better.

Education, the progress of time - I believe that these things can lead to something better, and I feel that the current court stands firmly astride the current of progress, telling the boats to go back the other way.

I get what you want, but if we had five justices seated like Sotomayor and Kagan, at least when we're right, we'd have a freaking fighting chance. There are arguments that are good arguments that don't even get their day in court with the current roster. I've grown to really, really dislike Kennedy. Rarely has so much evil been unleashed so languidly - he's like a meandering stream that always seems to find its way into a swimming pool.

[TheKentuckian]

40. Kennedy is an arch-conservative. The other four are just probably something like

4/6 of the most right wing in the last hundred years or so which frames him as "moderate" when he's probably top ten material, himself.

I agree with the other poster, that we are not strident enough with our choices and sure as hell show too much defference to the TeaPubliKlans with their nominations.

No way a left wing version of Scalia or Alito even gets a nomination, much less confirmed but we allow a tiny minority to represent the legal bent of the majority and they would continue to be a great influence in the minority.

[Bobbie Jo]

38. Why denegrate the advancement of women?

Tacky. The sarcasm is tired.

[Angry Dragon]

7. Both of mine voted NO

[WCGreen]

14. Sherrod Brown voted no...

He's a good guy and I am so lucky that he is Ohio's voice of reason...

[KoKo]

42. Barbara Boxer voted with Repugs... What has happened to her?

Her latest votes have all been with the Repugs. I remember when she was the only Senator who stood up with John Conyers for Verified Voting/Paper Ballots..

What happened to her?

[catbyte]

8. WTF is wrong with Levin these days?

First it's that heinous detention bill now this.

I'm going to have to call him on it. He's good about communicating with his constituents. Maybe he needs to retire.

Diane
Anishinaabe in MI

Sophie, Taz, Nigel & Leo: Members of Dogs Against Romney, Cat Division
"We Ride Inside--Hiss!"

[Citizen Worker]

9. Another reason I won't be voting for Obama or Cantwell. Get a clue folks, we must put our energy

and resources into building a second political party. The rich and the corporations already own two, working people don't have any.

[blue neen]

12. So, you're not going to vote for Democrats in November?

Really? You'd rather see a President Romney or a President Santorum?

Interesting.

[Better Believe It]

18. Maybe he/she will vote for a socialist candidate since Obama isn't a socialist.

Do they have that right and can a person who votes for socialists still be considered a progressive?

And are socialists who vote for socialist candidates actually right-wingers who must be crushed and banned from all liberal/progressive discussion boards?

[RZM]

20. Everybody should vote for whomever they want

But traditionally this board has been a place for people who support Democrats for office. If a poster does not support Democrats for office, I don't think this is the right place for them.

I've got no beef with people who vote socialist. I have beef with people who think this is the place to advertise that fact.

[Better Believe It]

29. Do you also have a problem with DU'ers who vote for the socialist Senator Sanders ....

and advertise that fact?

He doesn't run for office as a Democrat. He never has.

[RZM]

31. Not at all. He caucuses with the Dems

And is mentioned by name in the DU rules. Or at least he was last time I checked. If I lived in Vermont I would vote for him too. A socialist candidate for President is a different matter entirely.

[Better Believe It]

34. But he's not a Democrat and in fact a Democrat once ran against him for Congress!

He's a Senate member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Sanders doesn't caucus with Democratic Senate members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

That's because there aren't any Democratic Senator members of that caucus!

Sanders "is mentioned by name in the DU rules."

????

They have a special rule just for him?



Please post it!

[RZM]

36. It might have been in ATA

I do remember seeing something from Skinner about DUers being permitted to support Bernie Sanders. Either way, it's allowed. As you probably know, here are the rules:

But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative).

I would imagine that this wording had him in mind.

In any case, harping about Sanders isn't going to prove your point here. A third party candidate in the presidential election would most certainly NOT be more likely than Obama to defeat the conservative alternative.

[FSogol]

32. No, we only have problems with vile Repubs who stir up crap. n/t

[sharp_stick]

13. Holy fuck and a half

sometimes there are things posted here that just make me want to......

I'll leave it to the imagination but it wouldn't be pretty.

[FarLeftFist]

16. Who are you voting for?

[woo me with science]

10. There's a new one every day,

and there will continue to be a new one every day until we get the corporate money out of politics.

Occupy, because our government has been purchased.

[ieoeja]

15. For the record, this was done to counter pro-labor rules instituted by the Obama administration.

It is a mixed bag.

Signatures required to vote vs votes required to unionize.

Before Obama : 35% of workers' signatures and 50% of workers votes
Under Obama : 35% of workers' signatures and 50% of voters
Today : 50% of workers' signatures and 50% of voters

If/when this passes - and Obama will probably sign it to keep the FAA running - it will be harder to call for an election, but easier to win the election. Unions say they usually collect signatures from more than 50% anyway.

Pro: easier to unionize even after this than it was before Obama's election.
Con: the vote rule is an administrative rule that will be reversed when a Republican takes office. The signature rule is law.

Therefore, the advantages go away should Obama lose this election. While the disadvantages can only be erased with the election of enough progressives and paleo-liberals which is unlikely.

GOP - win
1% - win
99% - lose (as usual)
Democrats - win

Yes, this will probably work to the Democratic party's advantage. It makes re-electing Obama even more important to prevent a Republican president from reversing the gains granted by the Obama administration. And it raises the (forlorn) hope that a Democratic sweep of the legislature could reverse the losses taken away by the current Conservative majority in both chambers.

[Better Believe It]

17. Of course. Obama supported this anti-labor bill in order to counter his "pro-labor" rules.

It's also easier now for employers to decertify a union.

Or as some would say .... It's a crazy mixed bag!



Thanks for the election campaign talking point.

Why doesn't the labor movement see it that way?

[ieoeja]

22. If I read your linked story correctly, the same rules apply whether certifying or decertifying.

So it is harder to get the signatures for a recertification vote after a merger. But easier to recertify if they get the signatures.

Again, that is relative to before Obama's election, not to last week.

What election campaign talking point are you talking about, and what am I seeing different from Labor? 100% of the information I know about this bill I received from the link you gave. Everything I wrote came from your link. Challenge me on any piece of my post, and I will provide you the exact quotes from the link that you posted and that was written by Labor.

The only difference between your excerpt and mine is that I extracted the comparison for before/after Obama while you pulled the comparison for before/after this one bill.

[Better Believe It]

28. Let's get to the bottom line. Do you agree or disagree with labor's opposition to this bill?

And do you agree with President Obama's support for this anti-labor bill?

[ieoeja]

35. I agree with Labor on this bill.

I disagree with the President signing this bill.

Just as the 50% vote rule is an administrative rule, he could have offered to make the 50% signature requirement a rule as well. A fair compromise in the sense that both the good and the bad would be treated the same.

Your turn.

Do you agree or disagree with Labor's support of the new certification vote rule? Do you agree with President Obama's enacting that rule?

[MineralMan]

19. Minnesotans, please notice that both

Franken and Klobuchar voted no on this. If you think Amy Klobuchar is not on our side, you're wrong. Give her all the support you can in 2012.

[jsmirman]

24. How about Al Franken

They call me and call me and call me - and it was a time I was really not in a position to give money.

Recently, it's been dawning on me that Franken seems to stand up for what he thinks is right again and again and again. I wish they would call - guess I'll have to call them.

Am I missing something about Franken that is not to like?

I'm really trying to get my head around my Senator, Gillibrand, as well. It seems like her positions have changed over time, but she kind of seems great, as best as I can tell.

I'm open to someone telling me what I don't know that should make me rethink either of those two.

[MineralMan]

25. Franken has all Minnesota Democrats' Support.

Amy Klobuchar, on the other hand is often not thought of as a progressive Senator, despite her consistent voting with the progressive caucus. Once in a very great while she votes differently, but she is a reliable and trustworthy Democrat in the Senate. She is up for re-election this year.

Now, there's not much chance she won't win, but she still deserves our support.

I mentioned Franken in my post, and supported his candidacy 100% in 2008. He's not running this year. He'll be running again in 2014.

[jsmirman]

27. No, I get that (I know he's not up for re-elec)

his org is just constantly raising money for midwest candidates.

I'm beginning to think that trusting him with a few dollars isn't the worst idea in the world.

[jsmirman]

37. Just donated to the midwest values pac

they got me for 60, and I sure recognized a bunch of the tricks that "justice wanted" warned me would be coming down the pike. Caved to one of the upsells, anyway.

But Franken has consistently enough supported positions I am in favor of, so I suppose I'm glad to help.

[ProSense]

30. Elections

have consequences, and this is the consequence of having a Republican-controlled House.

The problem is that while the Democrats didn't budge in their opposition to the GOP's union-busting provision, they compromised to raise the threshold that would trigger a vote from 35 percent to 50 percent. It does not allow a non-vote to be counted as a "no" when the actual union vote occurs.

<...>

Several labor issues over the years have frustrated efforts to pass a bill. Most recently, a Republican-drafted bill that cleared the House last spring included a provision that would have overturned a National Mediation Board ruling allowing airline and railroad employees to form a union by a simple majority of those voting. Under the old rule, workers who didn't vote were treated as "no" votes.

The labor provision, which was opposed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, became the principal issue holding up the bill. A compromise reached two weeks ago by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, allows the mediation board's rules to stand, but it also toughens some lesser requirements that must be met in order to hold a union organizing election.

While the compromise was acceptable to some unions, more than a dozen other unions that represent airline industry workers — including the Teamsters, Communications Workers, Machinists and Flight Attendants — complained the deal was reached without their input and urged its rejection.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/congress-passes-faa-bill-speeds-232205016.html

One impacts the requirement for holding a vote, the other impacts the actual union elections. The GOP wanted a non-vote to count as a no vote during the actual union elections.

It's not a good compromise, but the GOP's proposal was worse.

If Democrats controlled the House, this would never have happened. The rule implemented by the administration in 2010 would never have been challenged and the FAA funding would never have been held hostage.

Still, there are those who continue to advocate allowing Republicans to win.

[MrSlayer]

39. At least one of my senators did the right thing.

Of course the asshole Toomey voted for it. What a disaster 2010 was.