White House Threatens To Veto Anti-Union Measure In Aviation Bill

WASHINGTON -- In a big boost to union activists, the White House on Wednesday night threatened to veto a major Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill should it include a provision that would alter the way rail or aviation workers can unionize.

In a statement of administration policy offered by the Office of Management in Budget, the White House made clear its opposition to an amendment that would revert the law to its previous language, making it so that if an eligible voter fails to vote for union representation, he or she would be tallied against representation.

“If the President is presented with a bill that would not safeguard the ability of railroad and airline workers to decide whether or not they would be represented by a union based upon a majority of the ballots cast in an election or that would degrade safe and efficient air traffic, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill,” the statement reads. “The Administration wishes to address these and other concerns as FAA reauthorization legislation moves through the legislative process.”

The statement was not a veto pledge. The language simply states that the president will be advised to veto the bill should it include the controversial provision. But coming one day before the House of Representatives is set to vote on whether to remove the amendment, sponsored by House Transportation Chairman John Mica (R-Fla.), from bill, the statement is nevertheless significant.

Aides on the Hill and operatives close to the issue hinted on Wednesday they expected the vote to be tight, with GOP leadership not entirely sure if it had the numbers to stop Mica’s amendment from being removed.

Mica’s office has stressed, repeatedly, that he wants nothing more than to reestablish longstanding policy. While opponents have characterized the bill as “making it more difficult for airline and rail workers to unionize," the Congressman’s spokesman on the transportation committee, Justin Harclerode, disputed that notion.

“The language restores the 75-years of precedence for the election and unionization process under the Railway Labor Act, the labor law that applies to those industries,” Harclerode emailed. “During those 75 years, the NMB repeatedly refused to make these rule changes, which are the purview of the Congress. In 2009, two members of the NMB changed course and did change the process.”

That change of course, however, has been a cherished victory for the labor community -- one of the few it’s won during the Obama administration. And the prospects of reverting to a system that counted no-shows as "no" votes has compelled union officials to launch a major lobby campaign to keep the revised language in place. That campaign, in turn, seems to have resonated inside the White House as well.

Comments

[dbrett480]

02:14 PM on 04/01/2011

I hope Obama stops caving to the Republicans and stands up for the unions. If there are no strong unions come 2012, Obama's base of support will be much smaller than he needs.

[bobbythompson3333]

05:32 PM on 03/31/2011

Veto/Cave Veto/Cave Veto/Cave Veto/Cave Veto/Cave

so many decisions Mr Pres

[Chris]

03:39 PM on 03/31/2011

This bill, if passed by the house, will never get to Obama. The senate will never pass it. The WH coming out with this, is just a nod to a large donor. Nothign more.

[tompoe]

05:09 PM on 04/02/2011

Who ever told you unions are just a large donor? How fantastical is your feeble imagination. Unions are a Democratic Voting Block. Capable of defeating GOP presidential candidates any time they choose. In 2012, unions are expected to deliver enormous damage to GOP candidates, humiliating them to the point, our country will sigh a huge sigh of relief that the GOP is finally crushed, and their anti-American crap is gone for good.

[Stopinstigating]

09:29 PM on 04/02/2011

"Who ever told you unions are just a large donor?"

There's a difference between public and private sector unions.

Our tax dollars are ultimately used to support public unions via dues withheld from the paychecks of public employees.

Private sector unions are supported by dues collected from the employees of a private employer the union represents.

Unlike private sector unions, the publicly-funded gravy train feeding public unions is far more insulated from the dynamics of the free market.

This difference is THE reason democrats have been so over-the-top in their use of envy, jealousy and ugly class bigotry to rally public support, when, in reality, surprisingly little will change for public unions, while nothing at all will change for their private sector brethren.

In effect, all taxpayers, regardless of their politics, end up supporting overwhelmingly democrat candidates - a situation that is in no way fair to union members or to taxpayers; a fact made worse for many union members who are forced to join if they wish to keep their public sector jobs. What happened to the rights of those workers?

And no one should feel sorry for democrats in the corporate donations department. It seems they've done quite well:

"Obama and the Hedge Fund Factor - by Andrew Ross Sorkin"
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/obama-and-the-hedge-fund-factor/

"Corporate Sponsors Get the Party Started"
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/05/corporate-sponsors-get-the-par.html

[Donna1224]

02:50 PM on 03/31/2011

It's about time that the President show his support of unions by threatening a veto! Republicans need to be shown that this country will not simply roll over and bow to their demands and cutting of workers rights! This is not a dictatorship....even though Republicans seem determined to make this country one!

[Stopinstigating]

08:34 PM on 04/02/2011

Based on what I've heard and read, the law in question in Wisconsin concerning most public-sector unions will:

1. Limit collective bargaining to matters of wages.
2. Limit raises to changes in the Consumer Price Index unless the public approves higher raises in a referendum.
3. Require most unions to hold votes annually to determine whether most workers still wish to be members.
4. End the state’s collection of union dues from paychecks.
5. End the ability of unions to require members to pay dues for membership.
6. The pension calculation for elected officials and appointees will be the same as general occupation employees and teachers.
7. Have public employees make a pension payment of just over 5% and a premium payment of 12%.

Besides these, which other rights are you referring to?

With millions of Americans still unemployed, why do public employees (who still have jobs, BTW) make this sound so much worse than it is?

[MsYellowDog]

01:52 PM on 03/31/2011

This time,I hope Obama means what he says and will not waffle to the right.

[Rusken]

02:04 PM on 03/31/2011

The Obama Waffle

Step to the middle and two steps right,
Step to the middle and two steps right,
Step to the middle and two steps right,
Step to the left and see my fright.

[MsYellowDog]

05:22 PM on 03/31/2011

That's very funny,Rusken,and fanned.

[senatortruth]

01:50 PM on 03/31/2011

No veto needed.

The SENATE can simply TABLE it.

Case closed...

[chriss0114]

12:45 PM on 03/31/2011

I'll go along with that if he goes along with voters not voting in an election is a NO vote for the incumbent

[Chris]

11:29 AM on 03/31/2011

How can members of the NMB change an act of congress? Does the act specifically state this? What wa sthe NMB's justification for ignoring 75 years of precedent?

[jmdziuban1]

11:40 AM on 03/31/2011

How can anon-vote be considered a "no" vote? If I miss polling day, and do not register a vote for candidate A, how could that be considered a vote, or endorsement, for candidate B? How is it that a pro-union vote must be made explicit to be counted, but an anti-union vote can be assumed to exist?

[MsYellowDog]

01:53 PM on 03/31/2011

I can answer that! Because the NeoFascists in the Rethuglican Party SAY SO.

[Chris]

03:40 PM on 03/31/2011

I do not disagree with the conclusion. But I wonder is hwo can NMB amend a law passed by congress.

[stunsitfel]

10:54 AM on 03/31/2011

Just have the President of the S-e-i--u sign the veto. He lives at the White House.

[INDIVIDUALTERRY]

11:58 AM on 03/31/2011

I think he did.............

[kaj74]

10:54 AM on 03/31/2011

So not showing equals a no vote for unions? can we also apply that to the House and Senate?
How many of these politicians, on both sides of the isle, have not been present for votes, because they're out stumping or humping, depending on their "family values" or political aspirations?
Here's a thought, the American People, who pay your salary, need to issue you punch cards. You punch in, you punch out. You will be paid, hourly, according to the current rate of the minimum wage. You do not have the right to collective bargaining, which means: No paid vacations, sick days or personal days. You do not get to work from home, it’s the PEOPLES’ dime, give the PEOPLE the time.
From your wages, you must procure your own medical insurance, no more subsidies from the American people.
Unless on the floor, or in a meeting, in regards to the PEOPLES’ business, you are not allowed in the Capital building past 8PM, nor before 7AM. No more sleeping in your offices, you will now either use the $24,000.00 housing subsidy on housing, or not take it, but no more double dipping.
And you know what? Between the 435 members of Congress, the six nonvoting delegates and the 100 members of the Senate, WE the PEOPLE, could start saving a lot of money.

[Chris]

03:42 PM on 03/31/2011

I wudl agree. I tihnk the biggest farce are those that run for a different office while in their current office. And yes I said this about both McCain and Obama.

Think abotu it during the last election at least 3% of the senate was not there on virtually every vote. That is horrible.

[astheworldturns]

05:36 PM on 03/31/2011

Actually we would save more money by paying them more. Then require that they don't benefit from their office while in office and after they leave office.

[ChiGuy]

10:52 AM on 03/31/2011

So, if a number of registered voters of Mica's district don't vote, should those abstentions be tallied as votes for his opponent?

[rchwel]

12:45 PM on 03/31/2011

I guess that means walker, kasich, scott, Mc daniels are not really the elected governors ? I am all for that ! Fanned

[Chris]

03:42 PM on 03/31/2011

Whihc opponenet?

[ChiGuy]

06:29 PM on 03/31/2011

When he runs for reelection.

[StageRt]

10:42 AM on 03/31/2011

I wonder if Representative Mica would be happy with a law that says any voter who does not vote is a vote against the Incumbent?

[LincolnBrigader]

10:45 AM on 03/31/2011

Or for the Republican Party?

[LincolnBrigader]

10:36 AM on 03/31/2011

The GOP, right out of the chute, has adopted a nationwide strategy of attacking labor, and an attack on labor is an attack on the middle class. Whether it's teacher's unions, transportation workers, public sector or private, at state or federal levels, the GOP nationwide agenda is crystal-clear and undeniable. But, historically speaking, it's nothing new. Reactionary forces have always attacked the working and middle classes to benefit their underwriters. The tactic's older than the hills. They serve their clients with canine devotion, to the detriment of all others, and their tactics include the use of false propaganda designed to divide the people they intend to defraud. In sum, the distress of the middle class--its pauperization--is no accident or coincidence, but the direct result of the economic policies of the GOP and their adherents and apologists. Rob from the poor to give to rich; take from teachers and other working people to fund tax breaks and corporate giveaways for their clients: That's the GOP plan, and it'll lead to the demise of the economy and our great republic. So, irony of ironies, the greatest threat to the republic is the Republican Party.

[Chris]

11:31 AM on 03/31/2011

I keep hearing that an attack on labro is an attack on the middle class. Many teachers starting paying is in the 20k's. How exactly is that mdidle class?

Not to mention the vast majority of the middle class is not unionized.

[LincolnBrigader]

12:30 PM on 03/31/2011

This is not a serious-minded reply to any of the points I made. First, my post had far more scope than beng just about teachers. Second, why focus only on their starting pay? Third, is your point that their starting pay is too LOW to be considered middle class? If so, you undermine the philosophical underpinnings behind your reply, and the attack on teachers' salaries. Fourth, I spoke about propaganda designed to divide, and your statement that the vast majority of the middle class is not unionized is an example of exactly that, besides being completely immaterial to begin with. On the whole, your reply is a non sequitur, devoid of any substantial refutation of the points I've made. You are welcome to try again to refute my post, but it'll take a bit more intellectual effort. I hope it is not beyond your capabilities.

[rchwel]

12:52 PM on 03/31/2011

The middle class albeit shrinking thanks to the un American terrorist right, the middle class was made possible BY UNIONS despite the rights 60 year battle to eliminate both.

[Reality now]

10:34 AM on 03/31/2011

Threatens to veto? Mr. President, get off your hands, grow a pair and tell them it WILL be vetoed if delivered with the anti union provisions. When will Democrats wake up to the fact that this is only the beginning. Republicans are getting more bold with their thirty year war against the working class. Their ultimate goal is to gut Social Security and Medicare and all other programs that benefit the majority of the people, the working class. All while the gulf between top and bottom, poverty and homelessness continue to grow. How long do Democrats think they can "stay above it all" and not fight for the people and these programs?

[LincolnBrigader]

10:44 AM on 03/31/2011

"Fight" is exactly what we need to do. Fanned.

[Chris]

11:32 AM on 03/31/2011

He has yet to veteo any legislation. why start now.

[Monsi]

10:33 AM on 03/31/2011

A veto threat from this White House is a joke... remember the Bush tax cuts? etc. etc. etc.

[headly67]

10:42 AM on 03/31/2011

Remember the repeal of DADT, Health Care reform, student loan reform, credit card reform, banking reform?

[INDIVIDUALTERRY]

12:15 PM on 03/31/2011

Yea , i noticed the BIG changes in healthcare cost , credit card charges and more friendly responsible bankers !
What a joke.

[SouthernJewel]

10:51 AM on 03/31/2011

@Monsi
http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/