Politics

Organized Labor Takes Gamble by Battling Obama’s Trade Bill

Published

10 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 Union activists could look like “extreme protectionists,” he said, which many Americans consider an outdated approach as they seek jobs in a global economy.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

Activism

OPINION: California’s Legislature Has the Wrong Prescription for the Affordability Crisis — Gov. Newsom’s Plan Hits the Mark

Last month, Gov. Newsom included measures in his budget that would encourage greater transparency, accountability, and affordability across the prescription drug supply chain. His plan would deliver real relief to struggling Californians. It would also help expose the hidden markups and practices by big drug companies that push the prices of prescription drugs higher and higher. The legislature should follow the Governor’s lead and embrace sensible, fair regulations that will not raise the cost of medications.

Published

1 day ago

June 18, 2025

Oakland Post

Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook. Courtesy of Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook.

By Rev. Dr. Lawrence E. VanHook

As a pastor and East Bay resident, I see firsthand how my community struggles with the rising cost of everyday living. A fellow pastor in Oakland recently told me he cuts his pills in half to make them last longer because of the crushing costs of drugs.

Meanwhile, community members are contending with skyrocketing grocery prices and a lack of affordable healthcare options, while businesses are being forced to close their doors.

Our community is hurting. Things have to change.

The most pressing issue that demands our leaders’ attention is rising healthcare costs, and particularly the rising cost of medications. Annual prescription drug costs in California have spiked by nearly 50% since 2018, from $9.1 billion to $13.6 billion.

Some lawmakers, however, have advanced legislation that would drive up healthcare costs and set communities like mine back further.

I’m particularly concerned with Senate Bill (SB) 41, sponsored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a carbon copy of a 2024 bill that I strongly opposed and Gov. Newsom rightly vetoed. This bill would impose significant healthcare costs on patients, small businesses, and working families, while allowing big drug companies to increase their profits.

SB 41 would impose a new $10.05 pharmacy fee for every prescription filled in California. This new fee, which would apply to millions of Californians, is roughly five times higher than the current average of $2.

For example, a Bay Area family with five monthly prescriptions would be forced to shoulder about $500 more in annual health costs. If a small business covers 25 employees, each with four prescription fills per month (the national average), that would add nearly $10,000 per year in health care costs.

This bill would also restrict how health plan sponsors — like employers, unions, state plans, Medicare, and Medicaid — partner with pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to negotiate against big drug companies and deliver the lowest possible costs for employees and members. By mandating a flat fee for pharmacy benefit services, this misguided legislation would undercut your health plan’s ability to drive down costs while handing more profits to pharmaceutical manufacturers.

This bill would also endanger patients by eliminating safety requirements for pharmacies that dispense complex and costly specialty medications. Additionally, it would restrict home delivery for prescriptions, a convenient and affordable service that many families rely on.

Instead of repeating the same tired plan laid out in the big pharma-backed playbook, lawmakers should embrace Newsom’s transparency-first approach and prioritize our communities.

Let’s urge our state legislators to reject policies like SB 41 that would make a difficult situation even worse for communities like ours.

About the Author

Rev. Dr. VanHook is the founder and pastor of The Community Church in Oakland and the founder of The Charis House, a re-entry facility for men recovering from alcohol and drug abuse.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌

Air Quality Board Rejects Two Rules Written to Ban Gas Water Heaters and Furnaces

The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units. “We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”

Published

3 days ago

June 17, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock.

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌
California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌

Two proposed rules to eliminate the usage of gas water heaters and furnaces by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in Southern California were rejected by the Governing Board on June 6.

Energy policy analysts say the board’s decision has broader implications for the state.

With a 7-5 vote, the board decided not to amend Rules 1111 and 1121 at the meeting held in Diamond Bar in L.A. County.

The proposal would have affected 17 million residents in Southern California, requiring businesses, homeowners, and renters to convert to electric units.

“We’ve gone through six months, and we’ve made a decision today,” said SCAQMD board member Carlos Rodriguez. “It’s time to move forward with what’s next on our policy agenda.”

The AQMD governing board is a 13-member body responsible for setting air quality policies and regulations within the South Coast Air Basin, which covers areas in four counties: Riverside County, Orange County, San Bernardino County and parts of Los Angeles County.

The board is made up of representatives from various elected offices within the region, along with members who are appointed by the Governor, Speaker of the Assembly, and Senate Rules Committee.

Holly J. Mitchell, who serves as a County Supervisor for the Second District of Los Angeles County, is a SCAQMD board member. She supported the amendments, but respected the board’s final decision, stating it was a “compromise.”

“In my policymaking experience, if you can come up with amended language that everyone finds some fault with, you’ve probably threaded the needle as best as you can,” Mitchell said before the vote. “What I am not okay with is serving on AQMD is making no decision. Why be here? We have a responsibility to do all that we can to get us on a path to cleaner air.”

The rules proposed by AQMD, Rule 1111 and Rule 1121, aim to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from natural gas-fired furnaces and water heaters.

Rule 1111 and Rule 1121 were designed to control air pollution, particularly emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx).

Two days before the Governing Board’s vote, gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa asked SCAQMD to reject the two rules.

Villaraigosa expressed his concerns during a Zoom call with the Cost of Living Council, a Southern California organization that also opposes the rules. Villaraigosa said the regulations are difficult to understand.

“Let me be clear, I’ve been a big supporter of AQMD over the decades. I have been a believer and a fighter on the issue of climate change my entire life,” Villaraigosa said. “But there is no question that what is going on now just doesn’t make sense. We are engaging in regulations that are put on the backs of working families, small businesses, and the middle class, and we don’t have the grid for all this.”

Rules 1111 and 1121 would also establish manufacturer requirements for the sale of space and water heating units that meet low-NOx and zero-NOx emission standards that change over time, according to SCAQMD.

The requirements also include a mitigation fee for NOx-emitting units, with an option to pay a higher mitigation fee if manufacturers sell more low-NOx water heating and space units.

Proponents of the proposed rules say the fees are designed to incentivize actions that reduce emissions.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

Congress Says Yes to Rep. Simon’s Disability Hiring and Small Biz Support Bill

“As the first congenitally blind person to serve in Congress, I am incredibly honored to lead and excited to celebrate the House passage of the ‘ThinkDIFFERENTLY About Disability Employment Act,’” said Simon.

Published

3 days ago

June 17, 2025

Oakland Post

U.S. Rep. Lateefah Simon (D-CA-12). File photo.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

The House of Representatives unanimously passed the “ThinkDIFFERENTLY About Disability Employment Act” on June 3, marking a major win for U.S. Rep. Lateefah Simon (D-CA-12) and co-sponsor Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN-08) in their bipartisan effort to promote inclusive hiring and boost small business accessibility.

The legislation establishes a federal partnership between the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the National Council on Disability to help small businesses across the U.S. hire more individuals with disabilities and provide resources for disabled entrepreneurs.

“Small businesses are the lifeblood of cities, making them accessible for all will maximize local economic activity and broaden the job market to everyone who is seeking to contribute to their communities,” she continued. “Investments in business and talent in our communities shouldn’t be limited to just those who are not disabled. Full stop, period.”

Since taking office in January 2025, Simon has introduced six bills. The House has approved two of them: this measure and the “Assisting Small Businesses, Not Fraudsters Act.”

Simon, a lifelong disability rights advocate and former BART board member, has focused her career on improving access, from public transit to the job market.