Author: Michael Whitney

IUPAT member Robin Dehaven

When Robin De Haven saw a small plane heading for a building in Austin, he sprang to action. The Army veteran was on his way to replace windows on his job when he changed course and helped rescue five people from the burning building.

“I immediately drove my truck over there, got the ladder off, went up to the side of the building and I saw people up on the second floor with their heads out the window for air because the room was filled with smoke,” Dehaven said.

Dehaven extended his ladder up to the stranded workers and tried to instruct them on how to secure it, but they were unable to. So, rather than have them climb down an unsecure ladder, he climbed up.

“I climbed inside the broken-out window into the building with them,” said Dehaven, who has a 3-year-old son.

With the help of one of the men inside, he then broke another window near a ledge, and secured the ladder there so he could get five people out safely.

“I held onto their waists and their backs so they wouldn’t fall if they slipped,” he said.

The kicker? Dehaven is a proud member of IUPAT, the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades. From IUPAT:

The men and women of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades praise IUPAT member Robin De Haven for putting aside all concerns for his personal safety and rescuing five people from that burning building in Austin. His actions were nothing short of heroic and we’re proud to have him in our ranks. A veteran who served in Iraq, the IUPAT was fortunate to bring him aboard through the Helmets to Hardhats program.

Robin’s courage and character are a shining inspiration in these hard times. I hope his actions remind us all of what is most dear in our lives, and how important it is to take care of each other. Robin De Haven is a prime example of what a good union man is made of.

Dehaven joins the ranks of other Union Member Heroes who answer the call of duty when disaster strikes, including Captain Sully, member of US Airline Pilots Association and the Searfarers International Union-affiliated crew of the Maersk Alabama against Somali pirates.

(photo: Andrea Gage/aflcio2008)

With Obama set to unveil the pre-Scott Brown health care compromise for next week’s bipartisan lovefest, the already fragile deal is falling apart. Fresh off a stinging slap to the face in which Obama refused to appoint Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, labor unions are apparently backing out of the deal on the excise tax on high-cost health care plans.

An agreement to tax high-cost, employer-sponsored health insurance plans, announced with fanfare by the White House and labor unions last month, is losing support from labor leaders, who say the proposal is too high a price to pay for the limited health care package they expect to emerge from Congress. […]

But labor leaders have backed away from the proposal in the wake of the special Senate election in Massachusetts.

“I do not believe there will be an excise tax enacted,” said Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America. “It appears that the administration and Congress will be taking a much more modest approach to health care reform. The cost and value of such reform would not justify using an excise tax.”

The AFL-CIO and allied members of Congress are backing away from the excise tax because they say it’s not popular with voters, as evidenced by Scott Brown’s election. The labor federation’s polling, in addition to finding that union members voted for Brown over Coakley, found the excise tax to be an unpopular idea that sent more voters to Brown.

But as a practical matter, labor leaders said, the excise tax was killed by the election in Massachusetts, where the Republican candidate, Scott Brown, won the Senate seat long held by Edward M. Kennedy.

“Fully 42 percent of voters believed the health care bill would tax employer health benefits, and these voters supported Brown by two to one,” Mr. Podhorzer said.

This is all very convenient, actually. The AFL-CIO has at an opportune moment thrown a wrench into Obama’s main priority right after they got screwed. Ten bucks says that these concerns would go away if he appointed Craig Becker to the NLRB during this week’s recess. If not, expect labor to continue to abandon the excise tax deal and kiss health care reform goodbye.

[Ed. Note: As Jon points out, it would behoove all parties to keep the insurance excise tax out of the legislation; there are many better ways to fund this reform.]

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) issued a statement about whys he joined the filibuster to oppose Craig Becker for the NLRB. Basically, she filibustered Becker because she wants to filibuster the Employee Free Choice Act.

“I believe there should be a balance between the rights of employers and employees in the workplace regarding labor laws and regulations that govern collective bargaining. After reviewing Mr. Becker’s record, I became concerned that his approach to these important issues could undermine the existing rules on union elections on matters that in my view should be addressed through the regular legislative process.”

Forget the fact that the NLRB simply cannot change the law on its own to allow majority sign-up, and that Becker said he didn’t think it would be appropriate to do so, and that Becker explained his previous academic writings as a very different role from an NLRB board member. Blanche Lincoln is doubling down on corporate philosophy in a desperate bid to keep her Senate seat. She opposed Becker because she wants issues to “be addressed through the regular legislative process,” which means she wants to ensure the Employee Free Choice Act go through the Senate so she can make sure to kill it herself.

Can we just abolish the Senate already?

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)

Ben Nelson just issued a statement saying he’ll vote no on cloture for Craig Becker tomorrow, joining the Republican filibuster.

“Mr. Becker’s previous statements strongly indicate that he would take an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB, and that he would pursue a personal agenda there, rather than that of the Administration,” said Senator Nelson. “This is of great concern, considering that the Board’s main responsibility is to resolve labor disputes with an even and impartial hand. In addition, the nominee’s statements fly in the face of Nebraska’s Right to Work laws, which have been credited in part with our excellent business climate that has attracted employers and many good jobs to Nebraska. Considering these matters, I will oppose the upcoming cloture motion and the nomination.”

Nelson’s statement cites Becker’s past pretty much verbatim from a Chamber or NAM press release.  This makes a maximum of 58 votes for Becker, making Enzi and Murkowski’s votes essential.

Let’s pick apart Nelson’s opposition, shall we?

Nelson claims that Becker would bring “an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB,” rather than that of the Obama Administration.  How does that make any sense, when it’s the Obama administration that nominated him twice?  Beyond that, Becker repeatedly said at his hearing that there is a stark difference between his previous scholarly works and what is required of a fair, impartial judge on the NLRB.

Next, Nelson says, “the Board’s main responsibility is to resolve labor disputes with an even and impartial hand.”  So Nelson is going to  help the Board on its mission by filibustering its nominees.  Brilliant!

Finally, Nelson claims Becker’s statements “fly in the face of Nebraska’s Right to Work laws.” One, “right to work (for less)” laws didn’t come up in the hearing nor have his previous statements reflected on the topic.  Two, Becker, in response to GOP questions on the topic submitted in writing, affirmed that that is the law and should be respected where it is law.  So what’s the problem?

The problem is Ben Nelson wants the Chamber of Commerce, NAM, and other corporate groups to pad his pockets for his 2012 race.  That’s it.  Workers be damned.

UPDATE: Here’s a statement from the AFL-CIO via Sam Stein at HuffPo:

“It’s a shame and a disappointment that Senator Nelson is willing to continue to leave working families without a fully staffed NLRB,” said Eddie Vale, a spokesman for the AFL-CIO. “Becker is an eminently qualified nominee. Its pretty confusing and circular logic that Nelson contends he wouldn’t represent the administrations agenda, when he was nominated by the administration, twice.”

The US Chamber of Commerce is again thanking Senator Blanche Lincoln for opposing the Employee Free Choice Act before it even comes up for a vote.  The following half-page ad ran in Wednesday’s edition of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

The ad’s headline boasts “90% of Arkansans AGREE with Senator Lincoln,” and quotes an article from The Hill about Lincoln’s apparent concerns about the legislation, as well as numbers from a summer poll commissioned by the Chamber showing apparent opposition to how the Chamber described the Employee Free Choice Act.  Finally, the Chamber’s ad encourages Arkansans to “thank Senator Blanche Lincoln for standing firm against ‘compromises’ on the Employee Free Choice Act.”

The Chamber ran a similar ad in July in which it also urged readers to thank Lincoln for her opposition to the bill.  At the time, TPM noted that Arkansas GOPers were frustrated by the ad, calling it “first-class butt kissing.”

This is why it’s great to have Al Franken as a Senator from Minnesota. During yesterday’s hearing for NLRB nominee Craig Becker, Franken used his time to pwn John McCain for holding Becker’s nomination without submitting to Becker a single question during the entire hold. It’s beautiful.

And here’s a rough transcript:

Franken: Thanks for coming to this unusual, unique hearing. I’m a member of 4 labor unions, don’t know how many others are. I appreciate how important this area of the law is.

Most people who are nominated to the NLRB have either represented workers, or management.

Becker: Yes, it’s a divided bar.

Franken: Enzi’s staffer represented management for his entire career. It’s not unusual for someone who’s represented labor to be nominated to the NLRB.

Becker: Correct

Franken: This whole thing about the SEIU, it’s happened before. If they represented a firm, they could recuse themselves if a former client appears before the board. Nothing unusual there. You answered some 200 questions, right?

Becker: Yes

Franken: How long did they have to answer the questions?

Becker: I don’t know, but there’s been a back and forth since the spring. Whoever had questions had months to submit them to you.

Franken: This is an unusual hearing. I’m new the Senate, but it’s unique. Only other board hearing was for a chair. This wasat the insistence of one member who held your nomination. Did that member submit any questions to you?

Becker: No.

Franken: Really. He, or she didn’t submit any questions over all those months. Huh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Harkin: Are your dues paid, Senator Franken?

Franken: Uh, for three unions.

Scott Brown is TERRIFIED of this man.

Senator-Elect Scott Brown is demanding he be sworn in as a Senator from Massachusetts as soon as tomorrow, breaking a deal in place that had Brown taking office next Thursday, February 11.

Marc Ambinder reports that Brown is flying down to DC and will demand he be seated immediately because “Dems are pressing ahead with controversial legislation and nominations.”

A spokesman for Harry Reid says “it’s fine” if Brown wants to be seated tomorrow. And according to the Boston Globe, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is “planning to certify the results tomorrow at 9:30 a.m., which would then allow Brown to travel to Washington for the swearing-in.”

It’s clear that Scott Brown is demanding to be sworn in for one reason only: the pending nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board.

Becker had a contentious hearing yesterday with the Senate HELP committee after John McCain held his nomination for months. HELP Chair Tom Harkin promised an “expeditious” confirmation process for Becker after the hearing, starting with the committee voting to approve Becker at 10am on Thursday. Harkin said:

I’m very proud of you and that you’ll be on the NLRB. We’ll report this out of committee on Thursday. I don’t know what the floor will be like but I assure you we will move this as expeditiously as possible on the floor so you can get to work. It’s about time this board starts doing things.

This would clear the way for Becker to have a scheduled floor vote for cloture within days, theoretically before Brown’s scheduled swearing in on the 11th. I asked the offices of both Harry Reid and Chris Dodd yesterday about the timing for a cloture vote for Becker, and both were mum. Since corporate groups have set up Becker’s nomination as a proxy vote for the Employee Free Choice Act, it would seem that with only 59 votes Democrats would be unable to reach cloture for Becker in a post-Brown Senate.

It’s not like they couldn’t have seen this coming. Yesterday a “Senate GOP aide” threatened “all-out war” if the Democrats tried to confirm Becker before Brown was seated. . . .

“If they try to push this guy through before Scott Brown is seated it would seriously jeopardize Senate relations and destroy Democrats’ last shred of credibility,” one Senate GOP aide said about the nomination of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) nominee Craig Becker, for instance.

“The place would melt down. A shady move like that would spark an all-out war,” the aide said. “And the outrage wouldn’t be limited to the Senate chamber. The majority of Americans oppose card-check and if Democrats cut a backroom deal to circumvent the legislative process in an effort to enact it by regulation, 2010 will make 1994 seem like a good year for their party.”

And as I wrote yesterday, this is just stupid, because voters don’t care about the Employee Free Choice Act, and they certainly don’t care about the National Labor Relations Board. Democrats should have pressed forward an confirmed Becker and his two fellow NLRB nominees. If Reid and Senate Dems were smart, and/or had any balls, and/or wanted to do a favor for working people, they’d have expedited Becker’s nomination. But now, even if HELP voted out Becker’s nomination immediately, and Reid filed for cloture right after, there’s a reasonable challenge to the legitimacy of any vote with Patrick poised to certify the results at 9:30 tomorrow morning.

For now, it looks like Democrats have yet again decided to roll over and let the GOP walk all over working people and their advocates. And the NLRB will continue to operate with 3 of its 5 seats unfilled.

Harry Reid filed for cloture for the nomination of Patricia Smith to be the Department of Labor’s Solicitor, or lead lawyer. The vote will take place on Monday and require 60 Senators to pass.

Patricia Smith was nominated in April and had a hearing in May, but has since been held up by the Senate HELP committee’s ranking Republican Mike Enzi of Wyoming. Thomas Frank writes in WSJ about Enzi’s hold:

What Mr. Enzi claims to find intolerable about Ms. Smith is the way she has described New York’s “Wage Watch” program, which encourages employees to report labor law violations. In a letter to President Barack Obama, Mr. Enzi claimed there were “four significant inconsistencies between Ms Smith’s statements” and documents describing the program. One of which—prepare yourself—concerns just who came up with the idea for the program. Ms. Smith originally said it was somebody in her department, but later she allowed that one of her lieutenants may have gotten the idea from someone who didn’t work for the department. Woe betide those who get their ideas from others!

Mr. Enzi characterizes Ms. Smith’s mistakes as damning errors, but the real issue is regulation, and government’s willingness to enforce it. We now know that it wasn’t a good idea to defund and demoralize the agencies that were supposed to supervise the financial industry, but the lesson should go much deeper than that. The late Bush administration practiced regulatory euthanasia all across Washington, and the consequences have been felt in every corner of the economy. […]

Yet the menace of outreach is why conservatives objected to the “Wage Watch” program even before they decided that the real problem was Ms. Smith’s statements. It was a dangerous scheme, Mr. Enzi’s office asserted in a statement quoted by Crain’s New York Business; a program that would “endow union organizers and community activist groups like ACORN with vigilante power.”

Indeed, Smith has been an incredibly effective regulator in New York State, cracking down on wage and hour violations and better enforcing the state’s labor laws. It’s that very effectiveness that scares Enzi and conservatives into holding Smith’s nomination. Pat Garofalo writes at the Wonk Room about Smith’s successes:

The New York Times has called Smith “one of the nation’s foremost labor commissioners because of her vigorous efforts to crack down on minimum wage and overtime violations at businesses including restaurants, supermarkets, car washes and racetracks.” During her time with the New York State Labor Department, where she is labor commissioner, Smith helped win more than $20 million in back pay for thousands of low-wage workers, including a record $2.3 million settlement with the owner of Ollie’s Noodle Shop and Grill chain in Manhattan.

As David Madland and Karla Walter pointed out, “too often penalties [for labor law violations] are easily reduced or levied for low amounts, and the solicitor’s office has minimized civil and criminal liability for the worst violators.” Smith can change that, if only her nomination could come to a vote.

Check back here on Monday for news and analysis of the vote.

Craig Becker, one of Barack Obama’s three nominations to the National Labor Relations Board will have a hearing before the Senate HELP Committee next week, marking a victory for John McCain and the Republicans.

John McCain is two for two.  After placing a hold on Craig Becker’s nomination to the National Labor Relations Board last year, the Senate returned Becker’s nomination to the White House.   And after Becker’s Obama renominated Becker, McCain again insisted on the nearly unprecedented step of a formal hearing for a member of the NLRB.  The last time an NLRB nominee had a hearing was in 1994 for a new Chairman of the Board.  Becker, by contrast, is up for one of three regular vacancies.

McCain’s chief complaints with Becker in his letter seeking a hearing are that he favors workers’ rights – a ridiculous complaint to make about a union attorney nominated by a Democratic President to the National Labor Relations Board.

With the new opportunity afforded to us by Mr. Becker’s nomination being resubmitted to the Senate, it is critical that we conduct a full committee hearing on this important nomination.

The NLRB is a bipartisan body that has the crucial task of overseeing, in a balanced fashion, our nation’s workplace laws government by the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB supervises union organization campaigns and addresses unfair labor practices by unions and employers. Through its rulings and activities the NLRB, in essence, forms the nation’s labor-management relations policy for employers and unions.

As you know, Mr. Becker has a long career of writings and activities that suggest his views concerning labor-management relations are far outside the mainstream in America. As such, I have serious questions about whether Mr. Becker has the ability to fairly consider important cases that come before the NLRB.

So Tom Harkin caved to McCain’s request and scheduled a hearing for Tuesday afternoon in what is expected to be a contentious hearing.  Republican Senators will use the hearing as a proxy fight for the Employee Free Choice Act, and the bulk of their questions will center on Becker’s beliefs on the role in corporations in union organizing, as well as Becker’s view of the NLRB as an activist policy tool.  Basically, the GOP aims to stir up fear that confirming Becker to the NLRB means passing the Employee Free Choice Act de facto.  Of course, there’s nothing to suggest that either Becker aims to do so or even if he believes the NLRB could make such policies.  Regardless, the GOP hopes to bring down Becker with the Employee Free Choice Act.

And let’s not forget that so long as Becker is held up, or even voted down, the NLRB will continue to have three of its five seats vacant.  NLRB nominations were put into “packages” starting with the Clinton administration in order to ease through single nominations that got held up.  The idea was that by putting multiple bipartisan Board nominees together, both parties could agree to pass nominations from both sides.  The problem now is, the modern GOP has no qualms about an empty NLRB, because they have no concerns for workers.

The Nation has more on the consequences of these vacancies:

To date, none of Obama’s three appointees have been confirmed by the Senate; they remain mired in political quicksand. Without a stronger push from the White House, few are expecting this battle to conclude anytime soon. And without more pressure from unions, the grassroots and labor-supportive Beltway forces, the Obama administration feels little compulsion to move.

In the meantime, few beyond labor insiders even know what’s going on. The saga of the NLRB nominations has stayed out of the spotlight, except for right-wing blogs and unionbusting law firms’ newsletters sent to employers. On January 14 the New York Times reported that the NLRB, with only two of its five members seated for the past two years, has become near comatose. Not only are there a very high number of tie votes on disputed issues but the legal validity of the decisions issued by those two members, even when they agree, is currently the subject of conflicting federal court decisions. In May the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that because two members do not constitute a quorum of a five-person board, the NLRB decisions currently being issued are not legally binding. That issue is pending before the Supreme Court but is not likely to be resolved soon.

We’ll be liveblogging Tuesday’s confirmation hearings for sure. Stay tuned.

Seal of the Communications Workers of America

A couple of follow-up items to yesterday’s post on the SCOTUS Citizens United decision and the split playing out in the labor movement. Two major AFL-CIO unions, the Communication Workers of America (CWA), with the United Auto Workers (UAW) came out hard against Citizens United, joining National Nurses United from the AFL in opposing the decision. From a statement by CWA President Larry Cohen:

It’s true that the court’s decision applies to unions, too. But CWA continues to support a ban on using treasury funds to support or oppose political candidates, for corporations and unions.

CWA, the United Auto Workers and the millions of active and retired workers that we represent know this is a flawed decision. It will allow corporations to dominate the political process, just like they are able to dominate the workplace, undermining laws that are supposed to protect worker bargaining and organizing rights.

Until we can enact the real reforms needed, including public financing laws, CWA and the UAW are calling on Congress to act quickly and hold hearings that document the corrosive impact that these independent expenditure campaigns have on decision-making by public officials. Congress also must look to impose new requirements on corporate independent expenditure campaigns, including shareholder approval provisions and tougher disclosure and accountability measures.

This is a pretty big deal; three of the AFL-CIO’s biggest member unions are very publicly distancing themselves from the federation’s supporting amicus brief on Citizens United.

So, just why did the AFL-CIO come in favor of this decision? Lindsey Beyerstein at Working In These Times dug up some of the obvious numbers, in which the AFL and its affiliated unions spent tens of millions of dollars in federal elections. But Lindsey also uncovers some possibly unforeseen consequences of Citizens United for the labor movement:

The AFL-CIO may look forward to attacking Blue Dogs and Republicans in the midterm elections. However, some analysts worry that the ruling introduces a whole new set of potential enemies. Foreign nationals have historically been prohibited from running ads to influence American elections. But Aaron Mehta and Josh Israel of the Center for Public Integrity argue that Citizens United could create a novel opportunity for corporations owned by foreign governments to influence American elections. On its face, the decision applies to all corporations, irrespective of who owns them.

A steel company owned by the Chinese government might now have the right to flood the airways with issue ads on U.S. trade policy. (Ironically, Citizens United’s grassroots lobbying arm calls itself the American Sovereignty Project.)

Citizens United will probably benefit organized labor in the short term. The mid-term elections are coming up fast, and labor wants to spend big to defend the Democratic majority in Congress. But the decision carries long-term risks that may ultimately outweigh the temporary tactical advantages.

It’s that sentiment that can characterize the divide in the labor movement on this issue. In the end, unions just won’t be able to compete with corporate cash, and that same corporate cash could be directly aimed at the union themselves. I’m going to close this with a quote I missed from John Nichols’ original piece in The Nation, because it sums up the labor movement’s problem well:

The bottom line is that a union leader who supports the Citizens United ruling is like a steer who talks up a steak restaurant because they’re both in the same business.

Dolla Dolla Billz Y'all || via thinkpanama on Flickr

John Nichols has an interesting piece over at The Nation about the fallout from last week’s Citizens United decision from the Supreme Court. It’s a pretty brutal take on the thinking that led the AFL-CIO to file an amicus brief supporting unlimited corporate spending. Nichols writes:

Some union leaders think that the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Citizens United v. FEC — which essentially takes the limits off campaign spending — will give them the same flexibility and freedom to influence the process as it does corporations.

These are the same union leaders who imagined that electing Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress would lead to the rapid enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act and meaningful labor-law reform.

The AFL-CIO actually filed a brief in the Citizens United case that urged removal of reasonable restraints on campaign spending.

Indeed, an attorney who prepared the amicus brief for the AFL-CIO recently participated in a conference call talking up the merits of the corporate position, along with representatives of the conservative Heritage Foundation and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky.

What are the leaders of the labor federation thinking?

They imagine that, with spending limits removed, organized labor will be able to buy enough television time to reward their political friends and punish their political enemies.

It’s a sweet fantasy. But the reality is that corporations will be buying so much more television time when it matters — in the run-up to key elections — that the voices of working Americans will drowned out with the same regularity that they are on Capitol Hill — where, it should be noted, overwhelming Democratic majorities have yet to deliver on even the most basic demands of the labor movement.

To think otherwise is to neglect the reality that one corporation — Goldman Sachs — spends more annually to pay just its top employees than the combined assets of all the nation’s major unions.

While Citizens United would give the AFL-CIO and unions large leeway to spend additional funds on ads, Nichols is correct that a dwindling labor movement doesn’t stand a chance to compete with any of the largest corporations in the country and the world. In an ideal world, possibly one with a rejuvenated labor movement bolstered by the Employee Free Choice Act, one can see the AFL-CIO’s ideas. But as it stands, it’s tough to make sense of the federation’s decision.

The AFL-CIO is largely alone. Nichols notes that National Nurses United (NNU), the largest union of nurses and a member of the AFL-CIO, filed an amicus brief opposing the outcome of the Citizens United decision. Nichols spoke with Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of NNU, about the decision:

“Equating what unions and working people could spend on campaigns would be like comparing a toy boat to an aircraft carrier,” she explains. “Corporate influence peddling in politics already distorts and prevents our democracy and political system (from functioning).”

SEIU also opposes the Citizens United decision, though it did not file an amicus brief with its position. After the decision was made public, the union’s Anna Burger released a blistering statement portending doom for working people.

“But with today’s Citizens United decision, the Court has given corporate managers the greenlight to bypass the checks and balances, use unlimited amounts from the general treasury -funds that should be used to increase the value of the business or pay dividends to shareholders–to instead pay for public communications expressly advocating the election or defeat of the candidates of their choice.

“Our democratic process was meant to protect the people not profit margins and today’s decision makes the need for an effective system for public funding, effective disclosure regulations, and other reforms of federal elections all the more pressing.

There’s some talk of allowing shareholders of corporations to exempt their shares from political use, similar to how union members can opt out of having their dues fund the union’s political activity as a fix to Citizens United. That would hardly level the playing field, as those activist shareholders will be in the minority. Regardless, it’s clear that corporations have the potential to spend much, much more than any union in this brave new world of campaign finance. Note: the AFL was contacted for comment but had not responded by time of publication. I’ll update when I hear back.

FDL Activist Patrick from Arizona called Rep. Raúl Grijalva’s office and confirmed that Rep. Grijalva (AZ-07) will not vote for the Senate health care bill. From Patrick’s report:

I called and added personality to the script so it didn’t sound like I was reading verbatim. Representative Grijalva will be voting AGAINST the Senate Health Care Bill.

More than 400 people have reported their calls to Democratic members of Congress since Friday, and another 30,000 have signed our petition to House progressives. We’re delivering the petition to Rep. Grijalva’s office tomorrow, so sign now if you haven’t yet.

Let’s thank Rep. Raúl Grijalva for his leadership on true health care reform – give him a call in DC at (202) 225-2435, or at his home office at (520) 622-6788. You can also drop him a line on his Facebook page.

Two FDL activist call reports indicate Rep. Jackie Speier (CA-12) will not vote for the Senate bill without changes.

Jeff S. from San Francisco called Speier’s office on Friday and was told that Speier “will not vote for the Senate bill in its current form.”

Mike S. reports the same:

Rep. Speier’s aide (at: 650-342-0300) said Speier was now opposed to the Senate’s bill – to which I cheered. Then I requested that Rep. Speier continue the fight in the House for a fair, health reform bill that includes the public option – nothing less will do. I asked that she work with the Progressive Caucus in helping make this a success.

Speier pledged to vote against any bill without a public option, and in response 1,761 people donated $5,773 to thank Speier for her stance. In our previous whip count for the war supplemental, Speier kept her promise to vote against war funding without troop withdrawals.

For keeping her word, Rep. Jackie Speier needs to hear our thanks. You can give her a call in DC at (202) 225-3531, and in San Mateo at (650) 342-0300. Let us know how your calls go with our call reports tool.

And if you haven’t yet, please sign our emergency petition. Tell the House Progressives to stand firm: keep your word and vote “no” on the Senate bill. We’ll deliver the petition early this week.

The whip operation of Diane Watson (CA-33), chief Whip of the Congressional Progressive Caucus was AWOL this summer when it came to lining up members of the progressive caucus to vote for only a public plan.

FDL activists started calling her offices yesterday, and again we find out Rep. Watson is off the progressive reservation.

Caucus whip Diane Watson’s office tells her constituents that she’s “willing to hold her nose and vote for a bill that had an individual mandate but no public option,” according to a FDL activist call report. This, while Raul Grijalva, leader of the progressive caucus, is being called a “monster” for standing up against passing the Senate’s insurance industry giveaway bill as-is.

The caller from Los Angeles reports:

I got to speak with Congresswoman Watson’s staffer Charles Stewart. He was very gracious and took quite a bit of time to deal with my arguments, but found them unpersuasive. He said she would be willing to hold her nose and vote for a bill that had an individual mandate but no public option and hope that things can be somehow patched up in conference.

This summer, Diane Watson pledged to vote against any plan without a public option along with more than 60 other Members of Congress. To thank her, 1,659 progressive activists donated $4,486 to Diane Watson. And yet Diane Watson is openly breaking this pledge, betraying progressive activists, and shirking her responsibilities to the progressive caucus.

It’s not an isolated incident. Dave, another caller from Los Angeles, reports that Watson’s office told him she hoped the bill would be fixed in conference – yet another soon to be broken promise to progressives.

Bullshit, plain and simple. Her aide said Watson believes this is the closest we’ll ever come to passing a healthcare bill, and actually thinks it can be amended after passed! I asked if she is aware there will be a number who will profit off of this bill? She ignored my question. I asked to be put on the record – as one who does NOT have health insurance – as being OPPOSED to the bill because it does not include a public option.

Watson herself told FDL News’ David Dayen in November that “we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” That same day, her office told a constituent calling her office to call Joe Lieberman instead.

Call the chief whip of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Diane Watson, and tell her passing the Senate bill as-is isn’t acceptable: DC: 202-225-7084, LA 323-965-1422. You can also post to her Facebook page.

If you haven’t yet, please sign our emergency petition. Tell the House Progressives to stand firm: keep your word and vote “no” on the Senate bill. We’ll deliver the petition early this week.