Rep. Gibson crosses party lines on big labor fight
The epic stand-off between labor unions and Wisconsin’s Republican governor has dominated headlines over the last week, and it reflects the growing rancor between conservative groups and labor groups.
The effort to strip public sector workers of their collective bargaining powers in that state is part of a national effort by the GOP to declaw Big Labor and roll back many of the laws that have empowered union organizers.
On Thursday of last week, House Republicans in Washington pushed an amendment that would have taken that battle up a notch, actually trying to defund the National Labor Relations Board.
The NLRB is the Federal agency that serves as the arbiter and referee in disputes between unions and employers. It is the chief mechanism in our government that insures safe, fair union ballots.
It probably won’t surprise you to learn that the agency was created by President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s.
That New Deal-era policy has been a fixture in American labor law for as long as most of us have been alive.
Still, two thirds of Republican lawmakers — 176 lawmakers — voted to zero out all funding for the NLRB.
The measure would have passed the House if not for the fact that sixty Republicans crossed over and voted against the amendment.
Those lawmakers joined with with every single Democrat in the House and voted contrary to Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy.
It turns out one of those Nay votes was cast by freshman Republican Chris Gibson, from New York’s 20th district.
“While Congressman Gibson believes that every federal agency and program needs to be part of the effort to cut spending,” said spokeswoman Stephanie Valle, “he did not feel the NLRB should be eliminated. It provides a useful function to resolve labor disputes.”
Rep. Gibson is new enough to politics that we’re still learning about his approach — politically and ideologically — to big questions of this kind.
He was elected as part of a conservative wave, championed by many tea party activists, but he represents a fairly moderate Republican district, one with a lot of unionized voters.
It will be fascinating in the months ahead to see how he sorts through these issues.
So what do you think? Now that our new congressman has a few substantial votes under his belt, how do you take his measure?
Tags: politics
Can’t rule out someone whispering in his newly-elected ear, “ever hear of Jimmy Hoffa?”
Or maybe he is a rare politician that really thinks about issues, policies and consequences.
Thanks, Gibson.
But if the Republicans keep it up, we might need a wind of change here, just like what is happening in the Arab world.
Control spending, yes but not at the expense of freedom.
Chris Gibson couldn’t vote to de-fund the NLRB because the people of his district would be occupying his office for the rest of his term.
Let’s not forget his vote against health-care for a large percentage of the North Country’s young women. He also voted against NCPR and local PBS stations – that should eliminate most local discourse on the issues and soon enough no one will know how our Republican masters vote. Oh yeah, his vote also stands to eliminate programs for seniors – this is from the Press Republican, who didn’t bother to mention Gibson voted for this:
“If the Corporation for National and Community Service is eliminated, as proposed in federal legislation, there would be no money for local programs that take elderly and disabled clients to medical appointments or deliver nutritious food to seniors and shut-ins who use the Meals on Wheels program.
The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill, 235 to 189, to eliminate the agency, which includes the AmeriCorps public-service program, as well as Senior Corps, the program that funds the Retired Senior Volunteer Program in Franklin County run by Susan Schrader.”
Tea partiers and their ill-informed “followers” will come to regret voting for extremist like Chris Gibson.
Working people need to become informed about what the right intends to do with their cherished institutions like public education to the 12th grade, food and shelter for seniors, women’s healthcare, and a lot more.
If you thought 40 years of handouts to corporations and the rich were something, wait until you see what they have in store for us next.
Don’t worry John. In less than two years the tea partiers will extract their revenge on that “too liberal” Chris Gibson.
Hey, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) says that sometimes it’s necessary to “get a little bloody”.
Never know what is talked about in conference these days.
Hey, Grampa Koch made a bundle working for Stalin, but I’m not sure what that has to do with Gibson’s vote on the NLRB.
PNElba – nice try to deflect attention.
Stalin is dead. Koch is out to pasture.
Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) is alive and well, and implying violence is an acceptable means of obtaining a political goal. He should be reprimanded, at least.
JDM – you really don’t see the irony of the last few posts.
get bloody means I just might get my head beaten if I protest and maybe even shot if certain far right people had their way.
PNElba – sometimes it’s hard to put effective irony, hyperbole, facetiousness, metaphors, etc. into written discourse.
“”If the Corporation for National and Community Service is eliminated, as proposed in federal legislation, there would be no money for local programs that take elderly and disabled clients to medical appointments or deliver nutritious food to seniors and shut-ins who use the Meals on Wheels program.”
Huh, ya know it’s funny but when I was a kid we had churches and neighbors doing what amounted to an early version of Meals on Wheels. This idea that if the Federal Gov’t isn’t there to provide funding the elderly will starve or something comes under the heading of straw man.
So does the allegation that it’s the right that’s talking about shootiing people, bloodying people, etc. In fact I believe it was our Beloved Leader who recommended bringing a gun to the fight.
Bret,
History is pretty clear on this one. The plight of the poor and elderly in this country before public social safety nets is very well documented. It wasn’t pretty.
sithc:
“get bloody means I just might get my head beaten if I protest and maybe even shot if certain far right people had their way.”
On display here is how the “far right” gets a quote from Democrat from Massachusetts attributed to them.
Absolutely incredible. But I thank you, sithc, for this demonstration of pre-programmed thinking.
You aren’t from Stepford, by any chance, are you?
JDM: I believe you were the one who started the trend of deflecting attention by invoking dead people. Too bad no one here (save John W) is attempting to answer Brian M’s question.
Brian:
I did suggest that perhaps a threat was involved in influencing Gibson’s decision. Just pure speculation on my part, except that at least one Democratic congressman made a public statement endorsing bloody violence with a crowd that is protesting union representation.
Does that help tie my thoughts together for you?
Let me clarify that last sentence, so no one thinks I have it backwards.
There is a crowd of protesters in Wisconsin. The subject matter of the protest is union representation. The crowd of protesters is generally supportive of collective bargaining.
Hey,Hey! Stop bickering!! There are enormous problems to be solved…or at least improved upon, in this country. Get your head cool and do something constructive, say something positive, and lend a hand somewhere.
The rich and the very rich have been gathering up the money(and the power) for a while now, and are about to take their ball and go home. We will soon be left here to entertain ourselves, create our own jobs and build our own future. Get your self-reliant act together and figure out how to take care of the community around you before you start buying ammo. We’ve already seen what life looks like in Darfur and Bosnia, so let’s not head that way.
I’m trying to get a handle on Rep. Gibson Nuclear reactor proposals.
How ‘out on a limb’ or difficult is it to be a proponent for something that if started today, wouldn’t come to fruition for possibly another 20 years? It seems like a waste of time coming from a Representative seat that has had 6 different Reps. over 20 years.
What realistic ball could he get rolling and how much thought would an opposition have to give to such an idea?
Bret,
I’m not sure when you were a kid, but you may have noticed that the white Conservative Christian churches that have replaced the old mostly immigrant Catholic Churches believe (like most Republicans) that people should take care of themselves and they have no duty to their fellow citizens, except perhaps to convert and control them.
As Dave noted above, the plight of the poor, children, and the elderly before the advent of welfare programs is well documented and it’s pretty disgusting. The idea that those folks were somehow being taken care of is frankly laughable and wishful thinking on the part of right-wingers who have blamed others for our country’s continued economic downturn. After 40 years in power the right can’t blame themselves so they have to blame the workers and the poor. In the past they blamed the Irish and Italian immigrants, African Americans, and the rest of the usual suspects.
Bret, why don’t you find out how people have lived in places like Watts, South Central LA, East St. Louis, Schenectady, Detroit, or the hollows of Appalachia, the rural Deep South, or frankly any of the places were poverty is most rampant today – no doubt, they are the same places it was most rampant when you were a kid, your fantasy of the good ole times notwithstanding.
John, “the right” has not been “in power” for 40 years to start with. Secondly, please, go and do a bit of research on just who it was that was the party in favor of slavery, that re-segregated the services, that was in favor of the Jim Crow laws, etc. Your attempt to color the conversation so that the left in this country is somehow lilly white (oops!) ignores the majority of American history. It’s not a right /left argument.
Thirdly, I was just pointing out the strawman argument that there would be no social services without Big Brother handing out taxpayer dollars is just that- a myth. It’s up to the individual communities to step up to the plate if that comes to pass. I know that even now in my little hamlet some of the local churches provide services without gov’t support. Your hate filled allegation that “white” churches are just there for control might be true where you live, but it’s not true everywhere.
Bret –
You confuse right and left with Republican and Democrat, which is a pretty narrow and irrelevant understanding of the terms. It wasn’t the left, no matter how much you might think that Democrats are really leftist, that supported slavery, Jim Crow, and the like. During the Civil War Republicans were on the left (I would even argue leftist). It IS a right-left argument, and also nativist, sexist, and racist arguments. Those are the factors that matter, not Republican or Democrat, which as you know has changed over time.
I said “White Conservative Christian churches” and that’s what I meant. Mostly immigrant catholic churches of the past, and African-American churches of the present, by and large did not and do not subscribe to the right-wing notion that people should take care of themselves or starve.
And also, your fantasy that in the past we took care of each other is not even close to the reality. Historians have demonstrated again and again that women, children, immigrants, the elderly, the inform and insane were treated just like those in poverty – they were exploited, imprisoned, enslaved, worked to death, or killed outright. Yes, there were community groups, some religious, but far more often based on ethnic and leftist political connections, that sought to alleviate their sufferings, but it was not until the advent of the Civil War, child labor laws, the 8-hour day, the civil rights acts, social security, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, the civil rights movements, that these things began to change.
None of those movements was led by the right. They were all led by people who were despised, imprisoned, and even murdered by those on the right.
Those are the facts. Like it or not.
Twist, twist , twist John. You should change your name to Chubby Checker.
I have some time now John. Your attempt to re-write history to fit your views is interesting. So right is left unless it’s right, or is that wrong? The Federalists were really anti-Federalists except when it suits your purposes to call them Federalists? So Wilson was really a right winger, except when he wasn’t??? And the leftists were the real Americans except when they were supporting Musolini or Stalin, unless they fit your wishes in which case they still were? Interesting.
I would agree things change over time, but trying to twist things so that they fit your view while ignoring fact is a poor way to argue a point.