I am still reeling from the events of this weekend in the 1st state senate race. (Click here for background.) Anne says she is still in this race to win, but her staff and volunteers who quit say that she has changed her campaign strategy to focus on Center City wards only to help John Dougherty, and to secure a 2nd place win for herself.
I am not sure what the truth is, and Anne has not called me back yet, but apparently she was shown a poll by Larry Ceisler that puts her in 2nd place, and she has said that her decision to change strategy is about using resources as effectively as possible to move up, and win 1st place. This poll has not been publicly released, nor has any poll been released that shows Farnese in 2nd either.
Even without polling, or knowing the whole story about Anne's staff quitting, Farnese still has a huge money advantage over Anne, and for anyone who has ever worked an election you'll know that without a serious volunteer army, (in a district like like you'd easily need 2,000-5,000 voter IDs + 250 or more Eday volunteers) it is hard to win without money to pay field staff. That means Anne could be in serious trouble and is unable to win even 2nd place.
Accept that possibility as a reality for a minute. An important question for Dicker supporters and undecideds then becomes:
Is there a difference to you between Dougherty and Farnese?
I have heard every possible answer in on and offline conversations with folks, from Dougherty is the one who can amass power in Harrisburg the quickest, and do good things for the city, to Dougherty is corrupt and will be indicted, or that Dougherty does not have any progressive credentials to draw upon from his labor leader resume. Farnese on the other hand has been around groups like PFC and Liberty City, and done real work to support them, and developed a progressive platform, say some, whereas others think he is beholden to Vince Fumo, and still more think he needs to demonstrate more of an understanding and commitment to liberal ideals.
A real conversation about the issues are important, and some sense of metrics should be used to get to produce a real analysis of the two.
- At the end of the day, if elected, which of these two has the most in common with the ideals of the progressive community?
- What are the issues the state senate is likely to consider in 2009, and what lead will the Guv or new leadership in the House provide?
- Which of the two would best lead the fight for progressive legislation?
- Which would be the most effective in actually passing it, and why?
- And what do we expect realistically from a newly elected city-elected state senator?
For as much talk as there has been about this race, there's been little real substantive talk about the issues. Who is up for a conversation about them?
(warning: spin will be heavily moderated, so keep your comments on track! There are other forums in which to talk about the political intrigue, I will heavily moderate this particular post to guarantee that folks are only talking about policy issues by candidate.)
Let's start with Doc
1) He has challenged Philly's campaign finance law. This was an attack on campaign finance, cleaner Philly elections, and on our own self rule.
2) Not content with the Philly challenge, and apparently trying to fend off things like showing that he spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lit attacking Mike Nutter, Doc sued to overturn Pennsylvania's campaign finance law.
3) His union has long been very, very white (and S. Jersey heavy), in a city that is evenly split between whites and African-Americans.
4) He supported the most reactionary Northeast Senator in recent history- Rick Santorum.
5) He funnels money to Neanderthal State Republicans who could be beaten, like Upper Darby's Mario Civera. This not only lets right-wing advocates stay in office, it makes it virtually impossible to have any sort of workable majority for Democrats.
6) The logic that he has used to support all these Republicans is that he has a duty to his union. Yet, he has never, ever fully explained how the duty to that union will be dealt with if he wins. Does he continue to support anti-choice, anti-school funding, anti-everything Republicans, who stand in the way of progressive legislation?
I'd second much of what Dan says
and will try to put down some of my thoughts this afternoon about this way-less-than-ideal choice.
But, first, I'd like to say http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ9uCiPBIWc.
Farnese the Progressive
Like a lot of people who ask rhetorical questions, I suspect Ray knows the answer to this one.
People who have worked with Larry Farnese over the last few years know that he is smart, energetic and has a good political mind.
They also know that as his knowledge of public policy has deepened his thinking has become more and more progressive.
So what differences would we find between a Farnese and Dougherty in the State Senate?
1.Farnese would support efforts to make our political campaigns more ethical and transparent. He will support campaign finance laws, not sue to overturn them as Doc has.
2.Farnese will support responsible controls on development, particularly on the waterfront. He will oppose casinos there. As a leader of the building trades, Dougherty will support anything that is built union. And he will support Sugarhouse and ultimately Foxwoods as well. (Anyone who is still talking about revising the Foxwoods plan to make it fit into the community doesn’t understand that a casino will never fit into that neighborhood.)
3.Farnese will support health care reform. Right now the building trades oppose the legislation that recently passed the House of Representatives. What’s Doc’s position? It would be nice to know.
4.Farnese will support bringing more minorities into the trades. Doc won’t say how many are there now.
5.Farnese will support other progressive in city and state politics and will help bring us into the ward system. Doc will try to take over the wards and the party. And he will back the occasional Republican as well.
Ask them all in person...
... and make a decision for yourself at the Independence Seaport Museum, tonight at 6:
Tuesday, April 15
6
Philadelphia Neighborhood Alliance Candidate's Forum
(Independence Seaport Museum, Penn's Landing)
--
-----
hannah sassaman
prometheusradioproject
building radio stations = awesome
http://www.prometheusradio.org
weirdest political poster ever
Right after the Superbowl, I saw this poster on the back of a pickup by Reading Terminal Market. Funniest political poster ever.
No content. No message. Just: "Don't drink and drive - here's my face." Never seen a poster like it from a candidate.
Here's what I do know: the best chance we have to do something good and progressive in the Senate this year is to pass real healthcare reform, and the building trades unions have been opposing it because it diminishes their competitive position with non-union employers. I'm as pro-union as they come, but Doc's folks, as I understand it, aren't so much about solidarity as they are about internal cohesion, and that bothers. me.
The issues at stake in the Senate seem to be the issues the gov wants: Green-energy, biotech and healthcare. The Senate does not seem to be seriously trying to move any ideas, just scale back good ones and stop others entirely.
---
For Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination for President.
This Too Will Pass, for the guts in your cerebrum.
Really?
The trades oppose Universal Healthcare? Is that some kind of joke?
They Oppose the Governor's Proposals and
the recently passed legislation in the House.
I'm not sure I fully understand why and I've been trying to set up a meeting with someone from the trades to have them explain it to me.
The gist of the argument is that if the state subsidizes health care for non-union contractors, then non-union contractors can hire good workers by offering them health care while undercutting the prices of union contractors who have to pay for the very good health care benefits of union workers.
This makes a certain amount of sense. But I don't think it is totally compelling for a couple of reasons:
1. Right now non-union contractors can already underbid union contractors by not paying health insurance. If non-union contractors have to pay something (about $150 per month) to provide insurance for their workers, that seems to level the playing field up a bit. At any rate it wouldn’t seem to make things worse. Big unionized chain stores, like Acme, support subsidized health care for smaller non-union stores on the grounds that this will level the playing field for them. I don’t see why the same rationale doesn’t apply to contractors.
2. The recent legislation only provides a subsidies to businesses whose average wage is at 200% of the federal poverty line or below (31,000 for a family of four.) I’m not sure but I would think that the average wage for non-union contractors is above this.
So, I must be missing something peculiar about the construction industry. Perhaps it is that the unions are afraid they will lose members if non-union contractors provide health insurance. I gather that many people who work in the trades work in both for both union and non-union contractors, obviously preferring the former, and being willing to pay high union dues, because wages and benefits are higher and, most importantly, because they pay for health insurance. But if non-union contractors offered health insurance, maybe tradespeople would have less of an incentive to join the union. (Of course, union health care benefits are great because they usually cover workers when they are not working. That would not be the case for workers getting state subsidized insurance through their non-union contractor.)
I really don’t know if that argument is right.
Again, I’m afraid I’m missing something. I hope to find out the answer soon. If anyone knows, please explain.
Building trades and Health care
I have had numerous discussions with Marc and others who still cannot explain why this is good for building trades workers. This bill in essence gives a competitive advantage to contractors who choose not to give their employees health benefits. When a non-union contractor bids against a union contractor he can bid lower because the taxpayers subsidize the employer’s health care costs.
2. Union workers do not work for both union and non-union employers. If you are a union member you are in violation of your oath of membership if you work for a non-union contractor. When you work for a non-union contractor you work for less than the union wage and help to lower the union’s hard fought for wages and benefits.
3. It is not about preserving union membership, but about preserving wages and standards. Building trades workers enjoy excellent benefits and can work for many contractors during the year without losing benefits. Further they can be out of work for significant periods without losing benefits.
I have asked Marc to explain why this law is a benefit to those employees who have struggled to get good, portable benefits. This just allows rat contractors to underbid against good union contractors because their benefits are subsidized by taxpayers. People supporting this bill have yet to explain how it helps.
I am not against health care for all. In fact too much of our benefit package goes to health care when it should be going in our pockets or pension. I just wanted to point out how this will lower wages and standards for all union workers and non-union workers whose employers give them good benefits
Perfect example of particular unions acting worse than Walmart
So a private club that gets to set its own insular and exclusive rules of membership that keep membership in tight family circles with a notoriopusly crappy record for minority inclusion is somehow doing "good" by enforcing lack of healthcare on the vast majority of the working poor and even working middle class folks. That's freakin' brilliant.
Lets push misery and ill health on the entire rest of population because it makes our exclusive, closed little circle's little bit of something look good by comparison. Wow. I'm speechless.
I'm sorry but this sounds a little to me like all the members down at the Country Club decided pass a law where they get to put out their cigarette butts in the palm of every non-member's hands. I really, really have a hard time seeing this policy as "standing up for the little guy" - quite the opposite in fact.
Kind of a perfect example of why a standing union leader of politically influential union (many of who's members don't live in the city) serving as an elected official and refusing to step down so as to serve his entire community can be every bit as much a conflict of interest as if Dick Cheney stayed on CEO of Haliburton right through this awful war.
Hey doesn't Cheney have a lesbian daughter he is very proud of as well? ;)
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Lou, don't employers who
Lou, don't employers who don't pay provide healthcare have to pay the state under this system?
Second, labor is really going to oppose healthcare for all because it hurts its competitive advantage?
That the building trades, largely white, all male, and many of whom are not even residents of the state, are opposing poor and working class people getting health care yet again shows the myopia of their organization. Why would you expect people of color, or any non union households, for that matter, to ever have your back on things like card checks, or occupational safety, or just about anything else?
Finally, your equation seems wrong on its face. Right now, non union employers pay zero into healthcare. That is a huge financial incentive for them not to hire union shops. If they are forced to pay the State for uninsured workers, the marginal difference in hiring a non-union worker decreases.
As its headed that way
Since this discussion seems headed in that direction here's that Tom Ferrick piece which used OHCD numbers to look at minority participation amongst union and non-union contractors in Philadelphia. Sure Council set up that board for the Convention Center but those numbers are private and this is the only piece with concrete numbers thats been published publicly to my knowledge.
If anyone has other solid numbers about the building trades, I welcome them. Supposedly in the Inquirer Editorial Board endorsement interview, Dougherty admitted that in terms of actual membership (not folks still working their way through the apprenticeship program) minority membership in Local 98 was between 2% and 4%.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
I know I shouldn't but.....
"Lou, don't employers who don't pay provide healthcare have to pay the state under this system?
Yes at a reduced cost, not near what others pay.
"Second, labor is really going to oppose healthcare for all because it hurts its competitive advantage?"
This is not healthcare for all, this is healthcare for some. No group in America has been more in favor of healthcare for all than labor. Our members could probably put an extra $2.00 per hour in their pocket under a better health care system.
"That the building trades, almost all white, all male, and many of whom are not even residents of the of state, are opposing poor and working class people getting health care yet again shows the myopia of their organization. Why would you expect people of color, or any non union households, for that matter, to ever have your back?"
I will stack my Local’s minority numbers against the numbers on this site. I expect our numbers are five to ten times as high. Why should facts get in the way of a good argument.
I wonder how you would feel if the wages and standards being lowered were for lawyers and not construction workers.
Labor has always had EVERYONES back. Including raising wages for all workers.
"Finally, your equation seems wrong on its face. Right now, non union employers pay zero into healthcare. That is a huge financial incentive for them not to hire union shops. If they are forced to pay the State for uninsured workers, the marginal difference in hiring a non-union worker decreases."
Many non union employers do not pay zero. They pay for bad insurance and ask their employees to contribute outrageous co-pays (sometimes as much as $3.00 per hour).
Your argument supposes that people will do things that are not in their best interest. The point of my post is that nobody from the State or those supporting this idea never tried to explain why it is good for labor that has good insurance and high paying jobs. I met with Marc Stier and he never got back to me on this issue. If you want support you have to make cogent arguments why people should support something. Statements like:
"That the building trades, almost all white, all male, and many of whom are not even residents of the of state, are opposing poor and working class people getting health care yet again shows the myopia of their organization. Why would you expect people of color, or any non union households, for that matter, to ever have your back?"
Do nothing to convince anyone.
"Facts"
Lou, how about we get a little focus here- are we talking about your local? I don't even know what your local is. We are talking about the building trades in general, right? A group that is far from representative of Philadelphians. Is that, or is that not a fact?
So, again- why would the building trades expect constant sweetheart deals in Philly- when their members are in turn opposing poor and working class Philadelphians getting healthcare?
If the world is just about self interest, how much longer do you think the trades will keep their positions of power? City Council has clearly started rumblings of this- like with the Convention Center. As Philadelphia becomes less and less unionized, don't you think the trades might want to think about not alienating people who would be their allies?
More "Facts"
Supporting Rick Santorum is not having everyone's back. Not only did that not have the back of people who care about LGBT rights, the environment, women's rights, social justice, economic justice, etc., it didn't have the back of the rest of organized labor.
How did Santorum vote on the Employee Free Choice Act, the minimum wage, OSHA, or any other pro-labor act, for example?
Edit: You know, like those commies at the AFL-CIO:
Puhlleeze
Linking my arguments to Santorum. Roy Cohn would be proud. No wonder there are no dissenting views here.
You should update your
You should update your bogeymen Lou, most of our readers probably don't want to have to do a wikipedia search on Roy Cohn.
Again, this is a post about John Dougherty, the most well known leader of the building trades. You said labor always has everyone's back. The fact is that Dougherty has not. Both in backing Santorum, and in opposing universal healthcare in PA.
If you could focus on that, that would be super. You can start with the post above, titled "facts".
Roy Cohen
Haven't you kids seen Angels in America? I would have though that as much as anything, it is keeping Roy Cohen's name alive.
Since this is the 15th, let me point out that among his many other talents, Roy Cohen was a wizard at living on OPM, specifically our money. In his later years, he declared something like twenty thousand dollars a year on his tax forms yet lived in a Manhattan townhouse, was chauffered around town in a limo, and ate at the best restaurants, all provided as a business expense by his law firm.
Oh!
Yeah, I had no idea until you said Angels in America and then I was like oh, THAT Roy Cohn...
Best most heart-wrenching film.
Numbers, bring em on
So what are the numbers? Hasn't City Council and the Mayor and Pat Gillespie been calling each other names precisely over the building trades resisting even being asked to tell the rest of the world what those numbers are? If you got more detailed accurate numbers spit them out. It's not like half the city hasn't been screaming about this for years.
If you have numbers 5 times as high as what the Inquirer can dig up, it seems like it would be of tremendous political advantage to publicize them. The typical silence indicates that the numbers are about right and the recent yelling about even being asked to put them up means it probably even worse.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
How the building tardes benefit from health care reform
Thanks for the correction about union members working for non-union contractors. I wonder, though, if some of the opposition of the building trades might be fear that they will lose members.
Anyway, here is why I think members of the building trades will not be hurt and are likely to benefit from the PA ABC program recently passed by the House of Representatives.
First, all health insurance is subsidized by the state because it is not taxed as income. PA ABC will give employees (who pay 50% of the cost of a decent but not great health insurance plan) an additional subsidy. It does not subsidize the employer’s 50% share of the cost. Perhaps the subsidy is a little greater because union contractors probably pay more than 50% of the cost of the much better and more expensive insurance unions have won in contract negotiations. But the additional subsidy to non-union contractors won’t be all that great, especially when you keep in mind that there are no taxes paid on that the expensive insurance provided by union contractors.
Second, right now non-union contractors can underbid union contractors because they pay $0 for health insurance. If they pay $150 per month under PA ABC for health insurance, their costs go up. And that means that they cannot underbid union contractors as much as they could before. So where is the harm to union contractors and their employees?
Third, Lou alludes at the end of his post to one reason everyone will benefit from health care reform. My union, SEIU is supporting it even though most of our workers have health insurance. But because health care costs are rising so rapidly, union workers are losing both health care benefits and wage increases. Every labor negotiation these days starts with a business demand for give-backs on health care—higher premiums, higher co-pays, and more limited benefits. And then, when the health care issue is settled, there may be a little left for wages, sometimes not enough to keep up with inflation, rarely more than that. If we don’t get health care costs under control, we are going to keep losing employer based health insurance and continue to see greater wage inequality.
Insuring the uninsured is one key component of controlling health care costs. (There are others that are part of the Governor’s whole health care reform package.) The fact is that most people get health care in American, whether they have insurance or not. But instead expensive health care in emergency rooms or in hospitals when they are already very sick instead of much less expensive regular and preventive care. That forces costs up for everyone because someone has to pay for the cost. We all do, including members of the building trades either through the tax dollars that pay hospitals for uncompensated care or through our health insurance premiums. The Governor’s office estimates that 6% of our health insurance premiums go to pay for care for the uninsured. Given our crazy health insurance system in which there are very limited controls on the ability of hospitals to pass their costs on to those with insurance, that figure may be low.
So insuring the uninsured is not only a moral necessity, it is a practical necessity for all of us, including the building trades.
A bit more about the trades and health care
1. Big unionized companies like Acme seem to appreciate the argument I just made. You would think that they would also be concerned about giving their non-union competitors subsidized insurance. But, they support the bill because it will encourage those competitors to pay something for health insurance, thus leveling the playing field up.
I don’t see why the building trades don’t accept the same argument Acme does.
2. The original version of Rendell’s health would have been even better for the building trades. It would have done what Dan suggested above, force nonunion contractors (and all other businesses) that not give their workers health insurance to pay 3% of their wages to the state. But that “fair share assessment” was dropped from the bill because we couldn’t get it through the House with a one seat majority. At any rate, the building trades didn’t support that version either. The current bill is not as good, but it is still in the interest of the trades.
For these reasons, and as a matter of working class solidarity, the trades should support the bill. Perhaps there are other reasons they don’t, but if so, I don’t know what they are.
Perhaps it is a point Lou makes in passing, that non-union contractors typically do provide insurance and that they will give up that more expensive insurance in order to buy cheaper insurance from the state. I could see that being a problem. But the bill that recently passed the House might fix it. It only provides subsidized insurance to small businesses whose average wage is less than 200% of the federal poverty line, which is $20,800 for a single adult. I would think that even in non-union shops, the average wage is higher than that.
Answers to two questions might help us figure this out:
1.How many non-union contractors actually provide health insurance? And what do employers typically pay for it?
2.Is the average wage of a non-union contractor likely to be higher than $20,800?
Finally, can we not use this discussion to bash the building trades on minority hiring, especially when we are talking to a representative of the union that has a very good record on the subject and especially since we should be trying to figure out how to get the building trades on board with health insurance reform not pick a fight with them.
"Bashing on minority hiring"
In debates I have heard Dougherty claim that the IBEW has 40% combined minority and/or women (i.e. 60% white male) in the pipeline in terms of apprenticeship programs but admit much, much lower in terms of full fledged membership (5% or below) if pressed. If those are not accurate numbers somebody should remind Nathan F to post the correct ones. I just put up what has been in the papers and what has been told to me or have heard personally coming direct from Dougherty's own mouth. People are way, way more than welcome to correct me with better concrete numbers, especially if they can back them up.
Those numbers may be better than some of the building trades but they still don't exactly "look like" the city and they sure don't look like some of the TV commercials and mail pieces the Dougherty for Senate campaign has been circulating.
I will admit its an issue thats been beaten into the ground generally but one where specifically the ads stand in stark contrast to the information (or lack thereof) thats been put out to the public.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Veering back to Doc vs. Farnese
Doc does have an interesting take on school vouchers. He likes them - specifically for Parochial schools.
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2007/10/15/editorial...
I hope no one will think I am being unfair if I say the written tone in the piece above sounds a little different from the way he addresses issues when speaking on the campaign trail.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
One more issue - casinos
Having heard Doc speak several times now, I find him frequently hard to pin down as to what he actually thinks on this issue. Basically he typically says that even though as a union leader he wants casinos to be built but as Pennsport Civic Pres. he wants to do whatever the neighbors want to do. And then its usually off to the races about his commitment to Pennsport Civic and all the great things it does and how he never misses a meeting, etc., etc.
I will pose this as a question. Has Dougherty ever once given a more specific answer than this or have I always just caught him on a ramble?
The answer is especially frustrating since he plans to remain both business manager for the union and head of the civic if elected as I understand it. Which hat does he intend to wear on the days he goes to vote in Harrisburg? Its not really an adequate answer.
Farnese, on the other hand, has been explicit in favor of resiting though not always specific as to where from what I understand.
Again others please free to fill this in.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
One more issue -- staff
Here's some context for folks: Fumo is known for having the best staff in the Capitol. He's got an eye for good people and people like working for him. Every time I've met a Fumo staffer it's been an intense experience, of one sort or another. People really think he has a helluva team. When you consider that, in Harrisburg, electeds come and go but the staff largely stays the same, that's really important.
So which of these candidates is likely to be able to keep some of this team assembled? Maybe none of them, because any one of them would be a Freshman and wouldn't have the budget to keep them all, or even enough to pay any of them well.
But maybe Fumo himself might try to keep some of them together for the right successor? Who knows. Something to think about, though.
---
For Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination for President.
This Too Will Pass, for the guts in your cerebrum.
PLEASE!
Farnese used to be a Republican!
And Dougherty supported SANTORUM! SANTORUM!!!