Clinton's Anti-Union Allies

Robert Johnson's nasty comments about Barack Obama earlier this week caused a huge stir in the media. Johnson issued a less-than-convincing clarification and then apologized to Obama on Thursday.

Yet few of the stories on Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television and a top surrogate for Clinton in South Carolina, noted his controversial standing in the African-American political community. Johnson has been one of President Bush's top black allies, lobbying for the repeal of the estate tax and the privatization of Social Security, as Jonathan Chait of The New Republic reported in a 2001 profile of Johnson.

Johnson also has a history of opposing unions that makes Clinton's allies in labor quite uncomfortable. Back in 1993, workers at BET voted to join the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and the Writer's Guild. According to an article in the Washington Afro-American, a historically black newspaper, AFL-CIO organizer Ed Feigen alleged that "during and after the election, BET violated the workers rights by offering them raises and promising benefits if they didn't join the union in."

"Employees were also threatened with job loss if they did vote the union in. A total of 13 employees were laid off after the election, hours were cut back, and two lead organizers with the Writer's Guild were fired, according to reports issued by the AFL-CIO. Mr Feigen told the AFRO that Mr. Johnson had stated to his workers that their actions were an act of disloyalty and that BET would never have a union."

One BET employee, Kimberlyn Dickens, said management had a "plantation attitude." Another BET employee, Samone Lemieux, said Johnson "promised us increased benefits and improved working conditions if we stopped our union organizing activity. However, after the election Mr. Johnson threatened us with discharge because of our union activity. He told us he had taken a $15,000 investment and turned it into a $400 million company, and that he was not about to start giving his money away."

There's little evidence that Johnson's opinion of unions has changed since then. Keith Boykin, host of the BET show My Two Cents, writes on his blog:

In May 2000, BET made the AFL-CIO's list of notorious anti-union companies, and the year before, 120 comedians, including Richard Pryor, bought full-page newspaper advertisements to complain that Johnson refused to offer union wages to performers on its "Comic View" show. Three years before that, Johnson was reprimanded by the National Labor Relations Board for BET's interference with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers' organizing efforts, a case that BET later appealed and won. But in February 2000, Johnson told USA Today, "We don't need a union. They're only money-making machines."

Johnson is not the only controversial figure within labor circles to play a high-profile role in Clinton's campaign. I reported last May that the PR firm of Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, maintains an active union-busting division.

The actions of Johnson and business of Penn tell a different story than Clinton's advocacy for labor. Clinton may not share these views, but as she courts union workers in Nevada and elsewhere, it's fair to ask why she deploys anti-labor individuals on behalf of her ostensibly pro-labor campaign.

Cross posted at The Nation

Comments

[SamEllison]

So Ari, I think Abu Dhabi just bought into Hillary Inc. What do you think?
"Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, has hired Burson-Marsteller, the US public relations company, to handle its communications amid rising scrutiny of petrodollar flows into western economies.­"
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/959c13e0-c5ef-11dc-8378-0000779fd2ac.html

[NYC07]

The question one must ask is 1. Is the American
worker and Idiot ?, 2. Does the American worker just not care ? 3. Has the American Worker given up. 4. Is the American Worker self loathing and looking to be destroyed Look at the results from tonight’ s Caucus. Hillary won the union vote she and Bill tried so hard to repress. According to the Media union people were screaming "We want to vote for Hillary" One of her top advisers is Mark Penn a union buster. If anyone can give me an answer as to what the American worker is doing to themselves, please enlighten me, it makes no sense.

[NoPCZone]

Hillary used to sit on the Wal-Mart board back when Bill was Governor of Arkansas. Arkansas is a 'Right to Work' state and Wal-Mart a vigorous anti-union company. Neither did anything about the plight of workers- period.

Any Union that endorses this Republican in Democratic clothing should be hurled out into the street, tarred and feathered and banned from union membership for life. She is the epitome of what is wrong with Southern Democrats, the Democratic Party in general and the DLC in particular.

[sky2evan]

It should be pretty obvious why.... Clinton is one of the lead movers & shakers of the corporate-funded DLC, which is pro-business & not very labor-friendly. They're the ones that pushed NAFTA ahead under the 1st Clinton administration. They support "free" trade, free markets, and less regulation. The so-called "New Democrats" of the DLC are very much on the right when it comes to economic & foreign policy.

Any truly progressive, pro-labor Democrat, would never put themselves anywhere near the DLC. All members of the DLC are either center, center-right, or right. All the ones who are GENUINELY pro-labor, or center-left, have either left the DLC or distanced themselves from it (Richard Gephardt, John Edwards, Al Gore). And the ones who have ALWAYS been progressive, were never part of the DLC at all - like Kucinich.

I'm just surprised that there are any unions that HAVE endorsed Clinton. Because if anybody really expects Clinton to be pro-labor, HA! .... they're obviously not looking very carefully at Clinton. Heck, even if you didn't know that she had close ties to the DLC, or don't pay attention to politics that much, the first couple things that pop into your head when you think of "Hillary Clinton"..­. are not going to be "pro-labor", or "anti-corporate".

Overview of the DLC:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1463
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=4706

[Justtellthetruth]

Hillary is a lying, desperate, sellout hack that would say or do anything to get elected.

She has actively worked to support THREE middle eastern wars to ensuse the backing of her ultra right wing hawkish supporters.

Now she is lying about getting us out of Iraq.

perhaps it was a freudina slip that she suggested that she is like LBJ, granting permission to the dreams of MLK. LBJ also seriously escalated the Viet Nam War.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Of the "big three", John Edwards is clearly employing the most populist rhetoric at this point in the campaign, and I take him at his word that he really means it.

As both Senator and former President Clinton have pointed out on several occasions.­.. (and been castigated roundly for it every time).....­just because a candidate's heart is in the right place on progressive issues....­...it does not necessarily follow the he/she will have the executive skills and judgement to follow through with glowing campaign rhetoric and promises.

As is true of many other things, Sen Clinton's general outlook is very well known, and, while she is maybe not enough of a firebrand leftist to suit some, most folks would agree that her administration would gererally be labor-friendly, as likely would be her judicial and other executive level appointees.

Sen. Obama by no means appears HOSTILE to organized labor..... Unfortunately, as in many other things his bedrock views in this area are somewhat murky and unknown. ......tm

[Binckeslaw]

I have always had a problem with the characterization of Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton as a friend of Unions, as a friend of workers, as a friend of the middle class. Please, someone out there, tell me what exactly either partner in this couple did for the benefit of America's workers that distinguishes either of them from Reagan, or Bush I, or Bush 2. The only good thing that Bill did for America was to hire Robert Reich. But that didn't last long before the Wall Street crowd, lead by Robert Rubin, took over.

[Jjc2006]

Biased much?
Teachers are one of the few groups who have stayed strong in their ability to organize and bargain, have overwhelmingly thrown their support toward Hillary and John. Why? Obama has been openly supportive of anti union things like merit pay. At one point he even was OK with vouchers.

But of course you would never mention Obama's negative remarks toward unions, would you?
Frankly, Edwards is the most openly supportive of labor and labor unions. But if forced to choice between Hillary and Obama, I sure won't make it based on the kind of spin you shoving our way here.

[itsnotmyfault]

I find it intriguing that everyone freely characterizes the "nasty comments" made by Johnson as totally out of bounds, yet no one has been willing to address the real issue.

From the very own Huffpost..­..From an editorial he wrote in 2000 before the election of GWB...John Seery| BIO (John Seery is Professor of Politics at Pomona College, where he teaches political theory.)|

A Tragic Unfolding of Character -John Seery October 2000

"Has George W. Bush ever used hard drugs such as cocaine? ... For many reasons--for one, to avoid another grueling impeachment trial of a sitting U.S. President--the American electorate deserves an unequivocal answer to this question, which indeed holds public, not simply personal ramifications. George W. Bush should step forward before the election and volunteer a simple and clear answer: yes or no.....

"Gotcha" politics based on youthful or private indiscretions are regrettable. Many members of the boomer generation indulged in "recreational" drugs in their youth, and maybe we should concentrate instead on their more recent public behavior, policies, and qualifications. But a distinction needs to be drawn between "hard" drug use on the one hand, and marijuana use, heavy drinking, and womanizing on the other--because the former was and still is felonious. Our democracy does not allow felons to participate in most forms of electoral politics, and voters tend not to reward those exhibiting felonious behaviors by electing them to high office. Whereas then-candidate Bill Clinton feebly confronted but nevertheless diffused the issue of his youthful marijuana smoking by claiming that he "never inhaled," George W. Bush cannot effect a similar triangulation by saying that he "sniffed but never snorted" cocaine. Were he to admit such a serious crime, compounded by a calculated cover-up, he would either need to leave office or be forced to leave...."

Somebody, in a literate and thoughtful way explain why this theory is no longer valid as it applies to Obama. Rest assured, the "nasty comment" will be in play as a feature of a Republican campaign against him in the National election.

[Kane]

BILL MOYERS: You point out, by the way, that Bill Clinton as president gave the super rich a larger tax break than George Bush's tax cuts, right?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Bill Clinton gave the super rich, the 400 highest income people in America a big tax cut. They were paying 30 cents out of each dollar of their income to the federal government when he came into the office. When he left, it was down to 22. Bush has lowered it to 17. Now, first of all, notice you're probably paying more than 17 cents. May well be paying more than 22. But Clinton gave an eight cent tax cut and Bush only gave them five cents.

We have people who make billion dollar a year incomes and pay 15 percent taxes and janitors who pay the same tax rate and school teachers who pay a 25 percent tax rate, something's amiss.

BILL MOYERS: But did you notice what happened when the Democrats briefly toyed with the idea of removing that tax break from the hedge fund and private equity managers Congress thought very briefly about removing it. And then the industry held a big party for Harry Reid, Senate Democratic majority leader down in Las Vegas, and he came back from that big party and said, "I don't think we'll be taking that up anytime soon."

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: The problem of the political donor class's outsized influence and its grip on Congress is bipartisan. There's one party in Washington. It's the party of money. It has different wings and factions. But Washington is the party of money. And the wealthiest people in America, the large corporations in America, are busy milking the government for everything they can get. And you are paying the price of their free lunch.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01182008/transcript5.html

[Kane]

BILL MOYERS: You point out, by the way, that Bill Clinton as president gave the super rich a larger tax break than George Bush's tax cuts, right?

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Bill Clinton gave the super rich, the 400 highest income people in America a big tax cut. They were paying 30 cents out of each dollar of their income to the federal government when he came into the office. When he left, it was down to 22. Bush has lowered it to 17. Now, first of all, notice you're probably paying more than 17 cents. May well be paying more than 22. But Clinton gave an eight cent tax cut and Bush only gave them five cents.

We have people who make billion dollar a year incomes and pay 15 percent taxes and janitors who pay the same tax rate and school teachers who pay a 25 percent tax rate, something's amiss.

BILL MOYERS: But did you notice what happened when the Democrats briefly toyed with the idea of removing that tax break from the hedge fund and private equity managers Congress thought very briefly about removing it. And then the industry held a big party for Harry Reid, Senate Democratic majority leader down in Las Vegas, and he came back from that big party and said, "I don't think we'll be taking that up anytime soon."

DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: The problem of the political donor class's outsized influence and its grip on Congress is bipartisan. There's one party in Washington. It's the party of money. It has different wings and factions. But Washington is the party of money. And the wealthiest people in America, the large corporations in America, are busy milking the government for everything they can get. And you are paying the price of their free lunch.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01182008/transcript5.html

[OhPlease2007]

Ari, great to have you aboard! We are very satisfied Nation subscribers. Your 'Hillary Inc.' article in The Nation was excellent, and is the standard by which we all are able to ferret out fact-from-fiction in Hillary's bogus pro-American labor rhetoric! Of course, I will never vote for her.

Keep up the great work!

:)

Edwards '08!

[lovethesinner]

Great post, Ari. I learned a lot from your reporting and from the comments, as well. It's amazing how tied to big business the Clintons seem to be. Not that I'm surprised that they are connected, but, you'd think they would be smarter about creating the appearance of being on labor's side.

Obama in '08

[JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin]

The Clintons hate working people. They hate progressives, and have tried everything they can to destroy the progressive, liberal base of the Democrats.

I've said it before. If you look at Clinton's record, you'd swear he was a Republican. Billy boy is getting very testy lately, because people are finally catching onto him and his wife's love of Republican tactics and talking points.

Get bent, Clintons.

[esl]

How more anti-union can you get than to force workers to caucus along with union leaders who have already expressed their support for Obama? We don't need another president like Bush or Reagan, people. Wake up.