Politics

Organized Labor Takes Gamble by Battling Obama’s Trade Bill

Published

11 years ago

June 10, 2015

In this April 25, 2015 file photo, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker speaks in Waukee, Iowa. Organized labors fierce opposition to President Barack Obamas trade agenda threatens to split the political left and deal a new blow to unions if the president prevails in an upcoming House vote. Unions can ill-afford another high-profile defeat. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik, File)

CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Organized labor’s fierce opposition to President Barack Obama’s trade agenda threatens to split the political left and deal a new blow to unions if the president prevails in a House vote that could come this week.

Unions can ill-afford another high-profile defeat. Industrial states including Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin have enacted “right-to-work” laws after electing Republican governors and legislative majorities. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is now a serious GOP presidential contender after winning major showdowns — including a recall election — against public-sector unions.

Last year, the United Auto Workers suffered a painful loss when workers at a Volkswagen plant in Tennessee voted not to join. Nationally, union membership has declined for years.

Nonetheless, labor groups say they have little to lose by battling trade deals they consider job-killers, and they’re ready to divorce themselves from Democrats who think otherwise. In campaigns against would-be friends, union activists are picketing offices and running TV ads against congressional Democrats who have endorsed or remain open to Obama’s bid for “fast track” negotiating authority.

“Labor is taking a huge risk,” said Gary N. Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University in Massachusetts. Union activists could look like “extreme protectionists,” he said, which many Americans consider an outdated approach as they seek jobs in a global economy.

Unions need smart, strategic thinking to recover from major setbacks in Wisconsin and elsewhere, Chaison said. “It’s been an extremely tough time for labor,” he said. “They must show they’re part of the solution.”

Unions and Democrats agree on most big issues, but trade bitterly divides many of them.

Obama says U.S. products must reach more foreign markets. He wants fast track powers to offer trade proposals that Congress can ratify or reject, but not change. If he obtains it, he’s expected to push the long-negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership with Japan, Malaysia, Canada, Mexico and several other countries.

The Democratic president is overwhelmingly relying on House Republicans to enact fast track legislation that survived a tough Senate vote. He needs perhaps two-dozen House Democrats, however, and unions are pounding his targets with calls, demonstrations and political threats.

Late Tuesday, House Republicans cleared the way for a vote as early as this week, while also making a concession that points to the need for more Democratic votes. The Rules Committee removed a provision, strongly opposed by most Democrats, that would have funded a job-training program with cuts in Medicare spending. Instead, the program will be paid for with higher penalties and tougher enforcement of tax violations involving some businesses and higher education tax credits.

The changes were made after a private meeting between Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Boehner strongly supports the trade bill, while Pelosi has been non-committal.

Strategists on both sides predict a close House vote, and many say the pro-trade forces are within striking distance. If they prevail, it will deliver a stinging rebuke to unions already facing waning influence. In 1983, about 17.7 million U.S. workers — or one in five — belonged to unions. Last year the total was 14.6 million, or 11.1 percent.

Even scholars who largely endorse labor’s trade strategy say unions are fighting from a posture of relative weakness.

“They don’t have that much power or prestige to lose,” said Julius G. Getman, a labor law specialist at the University of Texas law school. Still, Getman said, labor’s approach might win new allies from a burgeoning liberal movement that’s associated with activists such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

Leading the opposition to the administration’s trade agenda is the AFL-CIO, which generally hailed Obama’s succession to Republican George W. Bush. Some member unions balked at the AFL-CIO’s decision in March to suspend PAC donations in order to focus all resources on defeating fast track. But overall reaction has been hugely supportive, said Bill Samuel, the AFL-CIO’s head of government relations.

“There’s no risk in aggressively fighting for the right trade policy,” Samuel said. “Our members expect the politicians we elect to fight for their jobs.”

Samuel said union members routinely “put in thousands of hours” to knock on doors, phone voters and do other tasks to help elect candidates, nearly all of them Democrats.

Those defying them on trade are feeling the bite. For instance, the AFL-CIO is running a TV ad criticizing Rep. Ami Bera, D-Calif., for supporting fast track. The union says it wants a new congressman “with a backbone.”

The AFL-CIO also is running ads and organizing protests against Democratic Rep. Kathleen Rice of New York, who originally said she would oppose fast track but announced her support for the bill over the weekend.

“Which Kathleen Rice can we trust?” the TV ad asks in a tone Democrats generally might expect from Republicans.

The House’s leading trade proponent, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that Democrats had added to the roughly 18 of their members willing to vote for the package.

“They have a few more than that, but we need them to deliver more than they’ve publicly announced,” said Ryan, R-Wis. “We’re adding to our ‘yes’ column. We’re very close.”

Samuel said the AFL-CIO has no qualms about going all-out to block Obama’s trade agenda. Still, he acknowledged the effort might fail.

If the House approves fast track, Samuel said, “it will be with no votes to spare.”

___

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Oakland Is Losing Its Racial, Age and Economic Diversity, Says New Report

Don't Miss

First Lady Notes Personal Struggles in Chicago Graduation

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Business

Newsom Signs Addictive Social Media Law to Protect Kids

Newsom said California’s approach focuses on the features that can encourage excessive social media use rather than taking the broader step of banning teenagers from the platforms altogether. He contrasted the measure with restrictions adopted in Australia and Malaysia that prevent teenagers from accessing social media or creating accounts.

Published

4 days ago

September 22, 2026

Post News Group

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Word Count: 391

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a new California law targeting addictive social media features that can keep children scrolling, giving the state new authority to restrict how platforms engage young users.

AB 1709, authored by Assemblymember Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) prohibits social media companies from giving children under 16 access to personalized feeds, including “For You” pages, as well as other features designed to maximize screen time, such as infinite scrolling and video autoplay.

The law does not prevent children under 16 from using social media. Instead, platforms must deactivate the covered features for those users.

“This is about actually addressing the problem, the scrolling, the algorithms,” Newsom said Sept. 10 during a bill-signing event in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The law comes amid growing concerns about the impact of social media on children’s mental health and well-being. California lawmakers have increasingly focused on the design and business practices of technology platforms as part of efforts to protect young users.

AB 1709 is one of 13 youth online safety and privacy laws Newsom signed Sept.10. The package also includes measures regulating AI chatbots, increasing potential penalties for technology companies and establishing additional protections for children using digital services.

Lowenthal said the new rules represent a shift toward greater accountability for technology companies.

“We want oversight. We want accountability. We’re done asking nicely, and we’re demanding that there is a duty of care across these platforms — a duty that puts the wellness of our children ahead of profits,” Lowenthal said.

The law builds on California’s broader effort to regulate children’s online experiences. A separate law, AB 1043, will require users to provide their birth dates when setting up new phones or laptops beginning in January, with device manufacturers required to share users’ ages with apps.

Some youth online safety advocates have supported AB 1709 as a more targeted alternative to outright social media bans. Others have warned that the restrictions could make it harder for some LGBTQ+ young people to find support online and questioned how effectively age requirements can be enforced.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Featured

On Your November Ballot: Prop 38 Would Allocate $8.4 Billion to Immunology and Immunotherapy Funding

“Yes on 38”, with the tagline “Californians for Life-Saving Immunology Research and Cures,” is leading the campaign for the support side of the proposition.

Published

4 days ago

September 22, 2026

Post News Group

By Austin Gage, California Black Media

California voters will decide in November whether Proposition (Prop) 38 should authorize substantial state funding for immunology and immunotherapy research.

The initiative would fund immunology and immunotherapy research aimed at harnessing the body’s immune system to develop new treatments, medical procedures and potential cures for diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease.

More specifically, Prop 38, titled the Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Funding Initiative, is split into three main components that would go into effect if passed.

First, the initiative would authorize the state to issue $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds to support immunology and immunotherapy research. At least half of the bond proceeds, or $4.2 billion, would be dedicated exclusively to research.

Additionally, Prop 38 would make it mandatory for the state to enter into an agreement with a qualified nonprofit institute focused and dedicated to researching immunology and immunotherapy within 90 days of the initiative’s effective date. The research institute must be affiliated with the University of California.

The third component mandates that the remaining bond revenue must be directed to California-based public and nonprofit medical institutions through a peer-reviewed grant process.

“Yes on 38”, with the tagline “Californians for Life-Saving Immunology Research and Cures,” is leading the campaign for the support side of the proposition.

Along with the campaign, organizations that have publicly supported the ballot initiative include the California Democratic Party, The ALS Association, Alzheimer’s treatment and advocacy organizations, California Black Health Network, Parkinson Association of Northern California and Reform California among others.

“California has an opportunity to accelerate lifesaving medical breakthroughs. Immunotherapies work differently than traditional treatments. Instead of attacking cells directly, they empower the body’s own immune system to recognize and stop disease. Today, these therapies are already treating certain cancers and chronic conditions — and researchers continue to expand what’s possible. This initiative invests in proven science so cures can move from the lab to patients faster,” said the campaign.

No on Proposition 38 is leading the campaign against the measure, with support from the League of Women Voters of California. Opponents argue that California cannot afford to assume $8.4 billion in debt for medical research that may not produce definitive results. They also object to directing more than half of the bond proceeds — $4.2 billion — to a single qualifying nonprofit research institute, arguing that funding decisions of this magnitude should be made through the state’s regular budget process.

“Medical research can save lives, but Prop 38 is the wrong way to fund it. It would authorize $8.4 billion in borrowing for immunology and immunotherapy research and require the state to make $500 million to $600 million in annual debt payments for about 20 years. Those payments would come from the General Fund, which also pays for schools, health care, and other public services,” the League of Women Voters of California said.

A “yes” vote would authorize $8.4 billion in state bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy medical research.

A “no” vote would reject the proposed bond funding.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

Community

Asm. Isaac Bryan’s Bill Banning California Police From ICE Side Jobs Reaches Newsom’s Desk

The legislation comes as ICE ramps up efforts to recruit law enforcement personnel under the Trump administration. Bryan said the federal agency is offering financial incentives to attract officers, raising concerns about the impact on local law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve.

Published

4 days ago

September 22, 2026

Post News Group

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

A bill by California Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights) that would prevent state and local police officers from taking second jobs with federal immigration enforcement agencies is headed to Gov. Gavin Newsom after clearing the Legislature.

AB 1537 would bar California peace officers from accepting secondary employment related to immigration enforcement, including work with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The measure also would require officers to report offers for immigration enforcement-related outside employment to their employing agencies.

“They are trying to recruit our law enforcement personnel. They are offering these insane bonuses,” Bryan said.

Bryan said he is particularly concerned about efforts to recruit experienced law enforcement personnel while questions have been raised about ICE’s hiring standards.

“They want better skilled, better trained folks because their untrained and uneducated goons go through a very low threshold,” Bryan added.

The legislation would create consequences for California officers who violate its restrictions. Officers who fail to report offers of secondary employment related to immigration enforcement could face decertification as peace officers in California.

Bryan has framed the bill as a measure to establish boundaries between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement, particularly as immigration enforcement has become a major source of conflict between the Trump administration and California.

“This is a rogue agency that is harming the American people,” said Bryan. “It should be abolished, but in the meantime, we’ve got to do everything we can to put guardrails around our communities and protect our neighbors.”

AB 1537 previously received approval from the Assembly Public Safety Committee in March before advancing through the Legislature. The bill now awaits Newsom’s decision. The Governor can sign it into law, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature.