iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

White House Meets With AFL-CIO But No Detente Reached

First Posted: 06/10/10 02:48 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 05:45 PM ET

White House Labor Meeting

For roughly 45 minutes on Thursday -- over water, coffee and soda -- political directors at the AFL-CIO and senior White House officials met at the union conglomerate's headquarters to discuss all topics politics.

The meeting was not called for any particular reason. It was the usual weekly gathering that the two groups hold. But it came with the backdrop of a fraying relationship between the White House and the labor community after an administration official anonymously trashed labor leaders for pouring $10 million into Bill Halter's close-but-failed primary campaign against Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

Aides who were in attendance on Thursday said no formal apologies were offered to the AFL-CIO for the slights. But there was contrition. Top White House advisers Patrick Gaspard and Jen O'Malley said the comment was poorly made, and was wrong to suggest that the president thought unions should simply do the Democratic Party's bidding. Reps for the AFL-CIO, in turn, insisted that they would, as one aide said, "keep doing what we are doing," -- accountability politics as an institutional prerogative.

(As this discussion took place, incidentally, the Service Employees International Union filed 34,582 signatures for a general election challenge Rep. Larry Kissell (D-NC) -- another incumbent Democrat labor wants out.)

Fine, said the White House, but administration officials reminded the union leaders that the overall goal was to get the best candidates for worker's interest in Congress. There was no talk about the union's threat to sit out the Arkansas general election -- leaving Lincoln at a disadvantage. Nor was their talk about upcoming races in which labor could play a decisive role.

There was talk of policy, however. The higher-ups at AFL-CIO pushed both Gaspard and O'Malley on the administration's continued insistence of elevating deficit reduction over job creation. "It would be hard," one union hand said, "to get our members motivated without more done on jobs."

Gaspard, according to an attendee, confirmed that more focus had to be placed on economic stimulus. He pledged the president's commitment on that front. By 11:45 a.m. both he and O'Malley had left for other meetings. And the labor leaders filtering out of the union offices seemed relatively unmoved by the White House's effort at reaching a detente. The post-Halter-loss comment had been gratuitous, one said. Another aide insisted that the White House still didn't "get" why they felt the need to spend so much to try to defeat Lincoln, who was opposed to their most sacred issues.

It was, if nothing else, another chapter in an increasingly sour relationship between the Obama White House and the union leaders who helped bring it into being.

"I think, probably, [the relationship] leaves something to be desired," said AFSCME President Gerald McEntee during an appearance on MSNBC on Thursday. "I don't get to the White House very much myself, so I don't know personally... It's not bitter but it could be better."

Friction has been building over the past year spurred by the inclusion of a large chunk of tax cuts in the stimulus package despite the scant evidence that they would spur job growth. It extended into the decision by the powers-that-be in the White House to make deficit reduction a primary focus. And it boiled over during the health care debate when the president made an excise tax on insurance plans a priority (which labor hated) while throwing little evident support behind a public option (which labor loved). Perhaps the most telling moment came during those excise tax discussions when Obama had his economic aide, Jason Furman, try to pitch union leaders on the efficacy of the proposal.

"Don't fucking bullshit me," shot back a frustrated Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, at the time.

Through it all there was one thing (or person) keeping the relationship at an amiable level. That was Andy Stern, a close ally of the president who, as head of the Service Employees International Union, had visited the White House more than any other union leader. When Stern retired last month, the connections between labor and the administration frayed, far more so that has been reported. There is, currently, serious debate as to whether anyone can replace the emissary role that he played.

Stern declined a request for comment.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
 
 
  • Comments
  • 582
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (10 total)
06:31 PM on 06/11/2010
You want jobs, deport illegal aliens.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
MyNameIsJames
What should a person say in their micro-bio
11:48 PM on 06/11/2010
Ok so how many Americans can support families with those jobs? What about the Children!
12:33 AM on 06/12/2010
Supply and demand. The less working people the higher the wage.
It's not being anti 'brown people' it's being pro 'my wallet'
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PollyTics
undefined
04:08 AM on 06/15/2010
You want jobs? Enforce laws against Corporations who employ those who are undocumented. The problem lies with the employers seeking CHEAP labor and not with those who are willing to do a $8 an hour job for god knows what.
04:25 AM on 06/15/2010
Attack the problem from both ends.
Go after both the corporations who break the law and foreign nationals who break the law.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:31 PM on 06/11/2010
The White House told unions that they were pursuing deficit reduction over job creation in the coming months. The unions are right, they just don't get it. Put people back to work and raise tax revenue before you start cutting the safety net out from under struggling Americans.

This does have Rahm's fingerprints all over it but it's not like Obama's not aware of their stated policy folks.

I voted for the guy but I do not agree with shelving job creation or deficit reduction, that's insanity. The only reason they are doing this is to cater to the Blue Dogs and Cons because somehow they think that strategy will save their political butts. Meanwhile they're turning off the unions, union supporters, the unemployed and your average worker worried about losing their job.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:34 PM on 06/11/2010
I meant to write 'shelving job creation FOR deficit reduction'.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
wyldthings
as a young man I said I'd never get old an didn'
04:40 PM on 06/11/2010
I'm sorry to disagre but the white House is just facing reality. They want Democrats to be elected so they will be able to function. Progressive candidates are not electable in most cases. I am happy about this divides it hurts only Democratic candidates. If you continue to have Idealogical differences between youselves it benefits only the Republican,Tea party and Independents. Although this President took over a mess the Independents do not support a progressive direction they favor a more moderate direction.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:38 PM on 06/11/2010
I hardly think the Independents want anything to do with the Tea Baggers. Sarah Palin was the main reason every Republican in my family voted for Obama. Even today, they do not regret their decision because the party as gone so far to the right and become so scary they wouldn't vote Republican again if somebody paid them...and that's a big deal seeing they are Republicans and all.

Differences on policy happen all the time sweetie, that's why for the time being...we can still call ourselves a democracy.

I am happy the GOP is losing grip on it's party and can't stop the whack job Tea Baggers from going up against Democratic incumbents in elections. You all are so in for a disappointing November it's not even funny.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
MyNameIsJames
What should a person say in their micro-bio
12:14 AM on 06/13/2010
What is the "progressive" direction? I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. What is a moderate position during a banking meltdown emergency?
What is a moderate position for a bailout?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
den1953
The National Inquire of Politics the GOP!
03:22 PM on 06/11/2010
The white House has a bad staff infection and it is time to clean it out!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:35 PM on 06/11/2010
He's getting bad advice but in the end, it's his decision.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
den1953
The National Inquire of Politics the GOP!
03:38 PM on 06/11/2010
The problem with that is if he don't stop listening to that bad advice and clean the advisers out he will not win in 2012 unless Palin runs and nothing else will get done!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
den1953
The National Inquire of Politics the GOP!
03:18 PM on 06/11/2010
Maybe it is time to tell the president "your on your own" !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PollyTics
undefined
04:17 AM on 06/15/2010
GREAT and then we will have a Tea Party advocate at our helm? Thanks but NO thanks...I'll stick with Obama this next go round....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:03 PM on 06/11/2010
What? No donuts? No craft service table?

No mention of how the Citizen's United ruling basically was the driving force behind the $11m that into that race against Lincoln and ended up a swishee.
02:51 PM on 06/11/2010
The time has come for re-envisioning the relationship between Progressives and the hopelessly corporatist Democratic Party. As Progressives we should be open to working with Democrats who embrace our views as well as open to working against Democrats "who just don't get it." The idea that Progressive groups would work to re-elect a politician like Blanche Lincoln strikes me as irrational. Realpolitik may occasion choosing not to go after some Democrats, but to work to elect people who hold us in contempt strikes me as absurd. It's time to be clear in our purpose.

Could it be any clearer that the interests of Progressives and the interests of the Democratic Party have diverged so much that an assumption of mutual interest is nothing more than a lie that the Party reliably trots out after every contretemps? This month the Party apparatus unquestioningly supports a candidate who reflexively votes contrary to the interests of the American working man and woman (and then laughs at Labor for backing a politician who does) while last month it was defending DOMA and DADT and working to gut real legislation to reform military policy while trashing groups that are seeking to modernize our military).

Progressives (including Labor) must demonstrate our strength by becoming independent operators. We can no longer remain an appendage of the DNC.
04:24 PM on 06/11/2010
I agree completely. Excellent!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realitybase
01:32 PM on 06/11/2010
Ralph Nadar was right: things will have to get a whole lot worse before the American people get off their duffs and into the streets.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PollyTics
undefined
04:19 AM on 06/15/2010
It's actually quite difficult to imagine how things could get much worse, especially after 8 years of the Cheney/Bush gang has run this nation into the ground.
photo
guveqzero
Inventor and Innovator
01:00 PM on 06/11/2010
It's all about US jobs. And, the President doesn't know it. Depression II is coming. Plant your victory garden now so you will be prepared.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PollyTics
undefined
04:29 AM on 06/15/2010
Oh that is just simplistic nonsense. Come on now, you actually believe that our smartest President doesn't understand the basics of economic success? He may not have the answer that you or I might like, but it is hardly because he can't GRASP the concept.

By the way, planting a so called "victory garden" is always good sense, both economically as well as health wise. Fresh produce is far cheaper and the growing conditions can be controlled by both you and I.
12:54 PM on 06/11/2010
is there a 250 lb minimum if I want to join a union?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:24 PM on 06/11/2010
No but you may want to get that brain transplant you've been needing.
photo
alan2a
Actual Progressive
12:50 PM on 06/11/2010
I think every progressive should remember and have it etched in their brains what this Administration has done and not done. The point being that when the elections roll around in 2012(they'll start in 2011) the rhetoric will change and they will pander to the base and if history is any indication the base will be blinded and mollified in the vain hope that all that rhetoric has some sort of reality behind it. The answer in NO, HELL NO. They will just be lying to get our votes which after the election they will return to being anti-labor, anti-progressive and the corporatists they really are.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PollyTics
undefined
04:32 AM on 06/15/2010
So I gather that you would prefer for a Tea Party candidate get their turn at the helm of this country? I sure have mixed feelings about Obama, but I will never support one from the current Right!
10:59 AM on 06/11/2010
CREATE YOUR OWN JOBS - be entrapeneurial - don't look to the Gov. for a bail out.

Use your brains and try and do-it-yourself boys !!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RandyFunk
12:33 PM on 06/11/2010
Kind of hard when all the risk capital went to bail out the banks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
timm0
I'm not top 0.01% - so it must be because I'm lazy
03:08 PM on 06/11/2010
And the rest is invested in building factories in China.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:25 PM on 06/11/2010
Banks aren't lending money or credit to even those with impeccable records.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
fdeltz
08:47 AM on 06/11/2010
I have the backs of workers. Not unions. They are just another big business. I have been a union member and I have negotiated with unions. Once behind closed doors you quickly realize that they will do anything against an entire group of workers to achieve one more dues paying member. After all, dues are their source of revenue, not workers interests.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jmpurser
See My micro-bio
09:57 AM on 06/11/2010
So, you "have the backs of workers" but you think they're too stupid to see what their own Union is doing?

Right, I'm sure a genius like you has been in a lot of high level Union negotiations.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
fdeltz
10:50 AM on 06/11/2010
Actually, I have performed four union contract negotiations. And since my career is in manufacturing I have been all over the world. Your qualifications? Mailman? And to your remark, I have had many a worker unhappy with their union but they have no more choice in this regard (typically - unless it is a right to work state) than they have choice in who owns the company. Both organizations depend on the worker for their profits. The difference being, the company has a huge investment in it's workforce and needs their contribution (not to say that bad things don't sometimes happen), the company can even go out of business. The union has no investment and no risk - no skin in the game.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AnotherTry
Tell me again why we can't be equal?
08:11 AM on 06/11/2010
So now the unions know how the gays feel.
08:36 AM on 06/11/2010
That's because pretty much all unions are gay.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AnotherTry
Tell me again why we can't be equal?
10:34 AM on 06/11/2010
Not as gay as fraternities.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mam
03:54 PM on 06/11/2010
Not as gay as the Republican party, either.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
toosinbeymen
07:58 AM on 06/11/2010
Come on, Sam Stein. It was Rahm Emanuel's comment. But I don't believe Obama needs coaching to be anti union. He's already proven many times that he's anti progressive and liberal, until he needs us to get elected anyway.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mom2sons
INever doubt that a group of comitted citizens can
09:17 AM on 06/11/2010
They better find out quick, because I'm a union member and if labor stays home, Obama loses in 2012. Not saying all will stay home, but I wouldn't chance it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mam
04:03 PM on 06/11/2010
True. I seriously don't understand who the WH thinks will be the base that turns out to vote for Obama in 2012. Not only is labor likely to stay home, but also the independents, progressives, and young voters who propelled him into office in the first place. I work largely with 20 & 30-somethings who were energized, active & voted for Obama in '08. Now, they're seriously discouraged and disillusioned by the lack of courage this WH and the Democrats in Congress have displayed, particularly in the debacle of the health care fight and the kowtowing to Wall Street and BP. They are already checking out from the process & feeling that nothing they do will make a dent in the corporatists' control of our government.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:27 PM on 06/11/2010
The unions met with White House staff after the primaries and they were told by the White House that they are pursuing deficit reduction before job creation which is monumentally stupid. While I imagine Rahm had a hand in that, it is still the White House's official position right now.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Tommygun264
2Q2BSTR8
07:55 AM on 06/11/2010
The comments of an anonymous source should NEVER be given as much weight as the original offending comment. Even if the source had been President Obama himself, it is the responsibility of the media to only allow their sources so much leeway under the cloak of anonymity and should refuse to release such information unless the source is willing to stand by their words. However, once it became obvious that the press has abdicated their editorial responsibility, it is up to the White House to either embrace or refute such a statement, not just sit back and argue that anonymous statements shouldn't be given such credence. The White House needs to get a handle on this asap. They cannot think that the Democratic party will simply continue to have the support of organized labor by default. The argument should not be "vote for us because we're not as bad as the Republicans". When one party is clearly anti-labor and the other party is merely not "as" anti-labor, people will turn from the devils they know to the devil they don't know, assumptions will be made, and some devil whose only virtue is that they don't belong to either party, but could be much worse, can come to power. If the White House does not oust the anonymous source (and we know who you are Rahm) and make this right, things for this country will go from bad to much, much worse very quickly.