Everyone's A Pundit

I had an irksome conversation with a law clerk in our office the other day where he expressed doubt that Obama even supports the Employee Free Choice Act (this legislation proposes to strengthen union organizing, and it’s a no-duh Vote Yes for Democrats). The law clerk has “inside knowledge” that Obama is not pro-union.

Obama does, in fact, support EFCA, and other pro-union, pro-working people solutions. At least, he says he does. And he did co-sponsor the damn bill in the Senate. So I did a tiny amount of research to figure out why Labor people think Obama is "the most conservative candidate on the Democratic side", at least on labor issues.

Most of the web/news coverage concerns Obama's almost-perfect record on labor issues or the fact that Obama has called out Clinton on NAFTA/CAFTA and Edwards on his refusal to condemn the right-to-work law in NC. Not exactly a right-wing smoking gun, if you ask me.

When I dug a little deeper, I found what may be the problem: Obama sent out a campaign letter where he seems to have called unions (and Emily's list) "special interests", and eschewed 527 organization's funds. DailyKos took issue (in a post that is reminiscent of the AFSCME video I posted back in March), as did Working Life and Politico.

Help me out here. How is being against "soft money funding" the exact same thing as being "anti-union"? And since when did buying politicians do shit for labor unions? Labor has been paying through the nose for years for the privilege of getting shafted over and over again. Millions of members' dues are chasing after politicians who have failed to strengthen labor laws, appoint pro-worker regulatory bodies, raise the minimum wage, stop jobs from moving overseas or borders or improve healthcare.

Labor thinks the candidates' interests are their interests. So fundraising is what Labor cares about, because that's what the candidate cares about. They lash out at another candidate who says, I want to end that kind of fundraising - as thought that were a labor issue. It's not a labor issue, it's a political issue. They hope the candidates they spend for will reciprocate, but there's no real historical basis for that hope.

Just as with the Labor's occasionally retrograde environmental views, Labor is on the wrong side on the issue of campaign finance reform. They think being able to throw their money around gets them somewhere in elections, but the reality is, they are always outspent, always outgunned, by employers and industry groups, who have more money and far less scruples about how widely they distribute it.

So I am not persuaded yet that Obama is anti-union or anti-worker. Of course, for professional reasons, I can't really share this view with anyone in my world who might be able to contradict me, but I am infuriated that "my people" are acting like mini-Joe Trippis instead of worker advocates. I think that there's a lot of sour grapes about lining up behind the wrong candidate too early, another common mistake Labor makes. Let me know if you know something different....