October 06, 2006

Blogometer Extra

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: Labor Pains

  Enemy combatant, Pluto, supervisor.  What do those three have in common?  They've all recently been redefined amid much consternation.  On Tuesday, the National Labor Relations Board "redefined and expanded the definition of 'supervisor,' potentially taking away the federally protected freedom to form a union from 8 million workers," rued Tula Connell at Daily Kos.  "Under federal labor law, supervisors are barred from forming unions."

  The cases that yielded the NLRB action are collectively referred to as "Kentucky River" and involves a group of nurses; but, as Connell points out, "it's the lead case Oakwood Healthcare Inc. that creates a new definition of supervisor."  She continues:

The board's new definition essentially enables employers to make a supervisor out of any worker who has the authority to assign or direct another and uses independent judgment.  Amazingly, the board also ruled that a worker can be classified as a supervisor if he or she spends as little as 10 percent to 15 percent of his or her time overseeing the work of others. ... Under today's ruling, ... hundreds of thousands of workers ... now could be classified as supervisors, and so cannot belong to a union.  And not only nurses: journalists, building trades workers, port employees and many, many, others may now be considered supervisors under U.S. labor law and so barred from joining unions.

  Union might, once a crucial part of political support, has waned in recent years as the American economy has changed with the times, and as business-friendly politicians have steadily undermined it.  It's not lost on Connell, who says, "[T]he Bush-backed NLRB regularly has ruled in favor of corporate interests over those of workers: The board has taken away workers' protections and limited workers' freedom to form unions, including workers with disabilities, temporary employees and graduate employees.

  Nathan Newman at TPM Cafe puts it bluntly, "That means if [workers] say a positive thing about unions, their bosses are free to fire them at will."  He peers further into nightmarish workplace scenarios:

[T]hese kinds of exclusions means that other workers rights are also undermined.  The fact that independent contractors can't unionize means that many firms can contract out work to block or undermine unionization.  Undocumented workers in the workplace can be threatened with deportation to break unions.

And the new expansive definition of "supervisor" means that more workers will be given nominal supervisory responsibilities to undermine their right to unionize-- and lock every union vote in endless delays as companies litigate who is and who is not a supervisor.  Even if the workers "win", the election will probably be delayed long enough to kill the union drive.

And here are the dynamics when large numbers of workers are declared to be supervisors-- it means that friends in the workplace immediately are turned into enemies as supervisors are told to spy on their friends or lose their jobs.  Instead of a union being about workers challenging the power of top management, it is turned into an internal workplace civil war.

But divide and conquer, pitting people against each other based on race, ethnicity, gender and now menial distinctions in authority on the shopfloor are the tools of the trade for the corporate rightwing. This decision is just one more bullet to the rights of working Americans.

  "[F]or this administration, simple legalities are not the issue," writes Jordan Barab at firedoglake, "crushing labor unions is."

  That's not what the Chamber of Commerce believes, as Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly says.  He quotes:

The decision will probably affect primarily work sites where union organizing is going on, said Stephen A. Bokat, general counsel at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  "Where there are established collective bargaining relationships," he said, "these issues with regard to supervisors are very well established and I doubt most employers will totally upset their workplaces to meet that definition."

  Those who believe that "semi-cheerful spin, please raise your hand," remarks Drum.  "I imagine it will take no more than a few hours for some enterprising CEO with an 'established collective bargaining relationship' to realize what a great opportunity this is to send his company's unions into turmoil."

  James Joyner at Outside The Beltway has a wholly different, pragmatic tack.  "Do businesses prefer to deal with workers as individuals rather than as a group?&bsp; Sure.  Would they prefer to avoid the risk of being blackmailed with group walkouts and forced to pay workers more than they would command in a free market?  You bet."  He continues:

At the end of the day, however, the United Autoworkers can still try to organize the vast majority of the nurses at Oakwood Healthcare Inc. ... If 127 represents “two-thirds of the total bargaining unit,” then there are roughly 192 nurses at the facility.  Of those, only 12 were added to the “supervisory” category as a result of this ruling.  That’s a little over 6 percent.  Does that sound like an inordinately high number of supervisors?  Indeed, it sounds rather low to me for a profession in which at least an associate’s degree and often a bachelor’s degree is an entrance requirement.

That an auto workers’ union is trying to organize nurses shows how much the economy has changed since the bad old days.  These aren’t low skilled, geographically bound workers stuck doing dangerous work at the only factory in town but rather highly skilled, high demand, mobile workers in a burgeoning industry doing relatively pleasant work for which they spent years training.  Hospitals already have to pay high wages and offer competitive benefits to attract nurses, who are in shortage in much of the country.  The idea that they need to band together in solidarity for protection is absurd.

  Speaking of absurd, news jester Stephen Colbert explains the whole NLRB schmear in his unique, tongue-in-cheek way in a video available here that several of the above writers referenced.

  But Connell at Kos has little use for levity with so sobering a issue.  She rues, "How did we as a nation come to the point where those in power take away the rights of millions of workers to exercise the freedom to form unions--one of the pillars of the Bill of Rights?"

Posted by Conn Carroll at 07:56 PM

10/6: The Foley Babies

Plenty of right bloggers still believe the GOP can survive the Foley scandal with their cong. majorities intact. But if scandal stays in the MSM's focus, and if evangelicals don't come out to support a sex scandal-tainted GOP leadership, might an incoming Dem class be fairly labeled "Foley Babies" in the same vein that the class of '74 was labeled Watergate Babies. Would such a moniker help or hurt Dem efforts to put forward a positive agenda? Andrew Sullivan already is lamenting the cover the Foley scandal provides other GOP malfeasance and Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall felt obliged to make the case that the Dem tide started well before Foley's troubles.

FOLEY: It's "Karmic" Payback Time

MyDD's Jonathan Singer looks at results form four recent national polls and concludes: "As voters have more time to digest this story, it's difficult to imagine that these already terrible numbers for Republicans will get any better. And given that this story will not likely leave our television screens or newspapers any time soon, it's fairly safe to say that the GOP is in for a rough few weeks between now and election day."

The Foley scandal is so bad for the GOP, conservative Pres. Bush critic Andrew Sullivan worries midterm election losses will punish GOPers for the wrong transgressions: "Part of me is distressed that the GOP could lose not because of spending recklessness, corruption, torture, big government, pork, and a hideously botched war ... but because of a sex scandal which doesn't even have (so far as we know) any actual sex. But part of me also sees the karmic payback here. They rode this tiger; now it's turning on them. And it's dinner time."

On a similar vein, Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall argues the GOP was doomed before America was familiar with Maf54: "There are already a number of Republicans arguing that the election tide was beginning to turn their way before Hurricane Foley came ashore last Friday. Not so. And it's important for everyone to realize that is not just rhetoric. It's the uncomfortable truth. We don't. But whatever happens on November 7th, the GOP wasn't on the upswing before Foley. They were back on the skids."

The Plank's Michael Crowley, on the other hand, argues Foley could be good news for GOP candidates: "Still, if people outside of Washington mainly see this as a story about one pervert, that could be better for Republicans than some of the more substantive alternatives. If you're a GOP candidate, would you rather moralistically denounce Mark Foley's behavior -- or defend your position on Iraq? I think I might choose the former ..."

FOLEY II: Denial Ain't Just A Book By Bob Woodward, Ya Know

More and more righty bloggers are arguing the Foley scandal will blow over by election day, leaving plenty of time for a GOP comeback. RCP Blog's Tom Bevan uses non-GOP free fall in 10/5's AP-Ipsos poll results to make his case. Others write:

• Power Line's Paul Mirengoff: "I doubt that Rep. Foley's misconduct or the ins-and-outs concerning Speaker Hastert's response will have much bearing on the decision of voters in, say, Kentucky, Connecticut or Indiana to return, say, Anne Northup, Christopher Shays, or Chris Chocola to Congress. The fate of these candidates presumably will turn on their individual popularity in the district and how voters believe they and their country are faring."
• Townhall's Dean Barnett: "So how will it play out? The Republican leadership will get its act together. The story will soon die of old age; news gets old much faster in this, the era of the Internet. ... At the end of the day, Foley will be revealed as one very weird guy. And the Democrats will look more bilious and impotent than ever, spewing anger at Republicans about deeds done in the past while having no plans they're willing to share about the future."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "But there are many, many reasons to be optimistic about how this story will actually play out. ... The Kos, Dr. Lamontenstein, also thinks this is a winner. Again, check the scoreboard on his successes over the past four years. ... Stocks are soaring and gas prices are falling. ... To be a pessimist requires a complete buy-in to the proposition that the voters are stupid. I don't think so.

Not everyone on the right was seeing rainbows:

• Outside the Beltway's James Joyner: "It's one of the strange ironies of American politics, and perhaps democracy period, that big screw-ups are often given a pass by the voters because they are just too complicated to resonate while relatively minor scandals can incite mass outrage because of their simplicity. The GOP doesn't deserve to lose power over the Foley mess but it may wind up being the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back."
• Captain's Quarters: "This is a real scandal, and attempting to blame the Democrats will gain Republicans nothing. Had the GOP handled this properly in the beginning, it could have remained isolated to Foley himself, as it should be I don't believe that they intended to cover up any misdeeds by Mark Foley, but I do think they put partisan concerns ahead of their responsibilities to Congress, the pages, and the voters."
• Right Angle Blog's Matt Lewis: "Tom DeLay's departure has already hurt Republicans to a degree that few expected. Clearly, Congressional Republicans are missing DeLay's leadership and insistence that Members behave like a team. I can't help but believe that if DeLay were still in office, Republicans wouldn't be turning on each other right now."

FOLEY III: Bamboozled

For a few hours 10/5, it looked like righty bloggers may have gotten the break they needed to turn the Foley scandal around thanks to Drudge Report reports that:

According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal... Developing...

Hot Air's Allahpundit has a lengthy posts following the ups and downs of 10/5 righty reaction to Foley gate. All hopes were crushed by ABC News' The Blotter's report that three more pages are claiming to have been on the receiving end of sexual advances from Foley.

Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall couldn't help but gloat: "I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you. That Drudge bamboozlement about the Foleygate cybersex IMs being a 'prank'. The kid's lawyer says Drudge's piece was "a piece of fiction."

HASTERT: Kos' Greatest Fear

Speaker Denny Hastert (R-IL) fatigue has set in for some righty bloggers while others argue the release of disastrous internal GOP polling should Hastert stay is meant to pave the way to his resignation.

AMERICAblog recaps the "FACTS" of the case against Foley and DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas calls Hastert's resignation his "greatest fear."

Finally, TPM Cafe's Greg Sargent is keeping a whip count of GOPers committed to voting for Speaker Hastert in 1/07.

HOUSE LANDSCAPE: Landslide Insurance?

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas looks at House rankings from MyDD's Chris Bowers and National Journal's Chuck Todd that categorize CA-11 as "the kind of race that we might pick up in a landslide, wave election, but theoretically not amongst the most competitive" and comments: "So why is the NRCC dumping hundreds of thousands into this race? Republicans betray their own precarious position in this race by continuing to sink money into the district.

SENATE LANDSCAPE: Firewall Success?

MyDD's Chris Bowers adds 10/5's Reuters/Zogby results to his "five poll averages" and concludes: "If these polls show a pattern that might be reflected by current committee strategy, they show that the Republican "firewall" strategy of all but abandoning Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Montana in favor of defending Ohio, Tennessee and Missouri might be having its desired effect for Republicans. Democrats are pulling away in the former three states, while Republicans are improving in the previous three states."

LANDSCAPE '06: From Royal to Navy

National Review Online's John Hood looks at recent Pew polling numbers on trends in partisanship and notes that while "you can see a modest improvement in Democratic voter preference over the past couple of cycles, but it is pretty much limited to the Blue States." Hood concludes: "While there are plenty of much-watched, highly competitive races for House and Senate, reflect on how little people are talking about the massive leads of Democrats retaking governor's mansions in New York and Massachusetts. We're talking a 50-point Elliot Spitzer lead. Deval Patrick's average lead over Kerry Healey in Massachusetts is 32 points. Blue States are shading into navy, yes, but that doesn't mean it's curtains for the GOP."

CT SEN: Anyone Have Pictures Of Lieberman With Foley?

MyDD's Matt Stoller bemoans cable exec. Ned Lamont's (D) continued polling weakness and calls for a renationalization of the race "because it's on grand questions of national purpose and morality where Ned Lamont has the advantage. If it's a localized race, Lieberman is the known quantity. Lieberman's even running on that theme, of experience. Lamont must make the case for change, and the progressive movement is where that case is being made. The Foley scandal and the torture bill, where Lieberman adopts the far right status quo, are creating new ground every day for this race to be reshaped."

Fellow lefty bloggers were eager to point out similarities in Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and GOP Foley talking points:

• The official Lamont Blog: "From the president on Iraq, to child predator protectors in the House, Joe Lieberman refuses to hold ANYONE accountable. It's time for change in Washington, D.C. It's time to elect leaders willing to do the right thing even when its odds with a good talking point.
• Sirotablog: "So let me get this straight: Joe Lieberman's major reaction to this awful, disgusting and horrifies scandal is to berate as "partisan" those who want just a smidgeon of accountability?"
• firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Hey Harry Reid, he's talkin' about you. Are you gonna take that - again? "

MI SEN: It's Almost Like Giuliani, McCain, And Romney Have Something Other Than Love For Bouchard In Common

Right Angle Blog's Robert Bluey notes positive poll movement for Oakland Co. Sheriff Mike Bouchard and highlights upcoming support: "Following a highly successful visit from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) this week, Bouchard will soon welcome both Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) to the state."

MO SEN: What's Wrong With A Little Communism Among Dems?

RedState's Erick Erickson posts video from an unidentified source on a pay dispute between activist group ACORN and some employees. Erickson writes: "ACORN -- the activist group that is largely communist, has admitted that it is supporting Claire McCaskill. The problem is that ACORN is not allowed to participate in political activities. They've been caught on tape."

TN SEN: The Umbrella Defense

DailyKos' founder Markos Moulitsas notes Rep. Harold Ford Jr.'s (D-09) use of the Foley scandal to deflect an NRSC ad attacking Ford's Playboy bunny connections and writes: "Foley is a great rebuttal to whatever crap the GOP hurls at our candidates. ... And Foley will continue to pay political dividends to Democrats not because they are taking advantage of a horrible situation, but because Republicans refuse to be held accountable for their screw ups."

Townhall's Dean Barnett doesn't think the argument will fly: "If the "crap" hurled at Democratic candidates includes charges of serious personal dereliction (which I don't think is the case with Ford partying with the hotties, but I'm permissive in such regards), the fact that there is was a depraved Congressman in Florida whose sins were even greater hardly seems like a successful umbrella defense."

VA SEN: If Only Pres. Bush Was On The Ballot

Ex-Navy sec. James Webb's (D) Netroots Coordinator and Raising Kaine founder Lowell Feld looks at Gallup numbers showing Sen. George Allen (R) up 48%-45% and sees "a tie ballgame." Feld also notes: "One interesting bit of information from the Gallup poll is that Virginia likely voters, by a 13-point margin (37%-24%), say they would be "more likely to vote for a candidate who opposes [President] Bush" than one who supports Bush.

Also at Raising KaineNick Stump has video of Webb on CNN and writes: "Though Wolf Blitzer kept trying to pull Jim into a discussion about Allen's racism and Jim's long-ago position on women in the service, Jim took the high ground once again. At one point, Jim bluntly asked, "Can we talk about foreign policy now?"

BLOGGERS VS. MSM: Will Rathergate Ever Die?

After RedState's Dan McLaughlin posted an email from "VAC@cbsnews.com" to the RNC asking:

Please send me information on how I can become an intern for some perverted, phony family-values Congressman. I know there's no shortage of Republican hypocrites on the Hill, so please rush me the info ASAP. And don't forget to keep covering-up your dirty little secrets, it makes great fodder for your enemies.

The Public Eye's Vaughn Ververs responded: "CBS News employee Vincent Cammisa, a tape archivist at the network. ... The opinions of a tape archivist do not speak for a news organization, let alone an entire industry. But it's absolutely fair for critics to air such an ill-advised e-mail when it's sent from a CBS News account."

McLaughlin responded: "But while I agree that we can't draw broad conclusions about the entire culture of CBS News from a tape archivist, the attitudes behind them are something else. In the long term, the job of restoring the credibility CBS was leaching away for decades even before Rathergate is going to require an active effort to bring in personnel who reflect a less monolithic political perspective.

BLOGGER VS. MSM II: At Least Tom Edsall Ain't Blogging About It

National Review Online's David Frum is blogging while reading Bob Woodward's State of Denial. A sample:

Woodward characters are always saying things like "We've got to get this on track" and "Fix it." Bold, decisive - and Woodward loves reporting this boldness and decisiveness. But when things don't get back on track, when they don't get fixed, the question, "why not?" does not long or deeply interest our chronicler. It is a remarkable fact, but America's most famous living reporter on politics and government is not really very seriously interested in either politics or government.

BLOGGERS VS. BELTWAY: The Bloggers Win The Pennant! The Bloggers Win The Pennant!

Right Angle Blog's Ivy Sellers links to video of the Heritage Foundation's panel discussion on "How Bloggers Claimed Their First Major Policy Victory."

Moderated by Heritage's Tim Chapman the panel included Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, N.Z. Bear of Porkbusters.org, Rebecca Carr of Cox News Service, Justin Rood of TPMmuckraker.com and Mark Tapscott of the Washington Examiner.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Robert Johnson For Senate

The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum looks at 60 Minutesreports that the federal no-fly list includes names like "Gary Smith, John Williams and Robert Johnson." Drum writes: "You know, I'll bet if there were some senator named Robert Johnson, the FBI would figure out a way to make this list a little more user-friendly. Maybe we should try to elect one."

LEST WE FORGET: The Sane, Fun, Adjusted, Grown-Up Mr. Slave

Tired of GOP conflation of homosexuality and deviant behavior Andrew Sullivanquotes South Park's Chef: "Children, there's a BIG difference between gay people and Mr. Garrison. Do you understand that?" Sullivan comments:

I fear, Chef, that many still don't. South Park, as usual, gets it right. It has gay characters who are actually sane, fun, adjusted, grown-up. They're caricatures, but based on an acceptance of the reality of actual gay life: Big Gay Al and Mr Slave, to cite two such. I'm so glad they eventually found each other. One critical thing they have in common: They are out of the closet. Then there's the self-hating, closet-case, Mr Garrison, and Butters's closeted, dysfunctional dad, Mr Stotch. Mark Foley is both Mr Garrison and Mr Stotch - in Congress.

Posted by Conn Carroll at 12:16 PM