Must read from Salon's Joe Conason: Hillary Clinton's Labor Problem

[flpoljunkie]

Hillary Clinton's labor problem

One of her top strategists is CEO of a union-busting P.R. firm. Doesn't labor deserve more respect?
By Joe Conason

Jun. 16, 2007

There must be moments when the leaders of America's labor movement mutter the dark lament of the late Rodney Dangerfield, because so often they "get no respect" from the same Democratic politicians who depend on union endorsements and funding. This week they could certainly feel that way, after voicing their "concern" over the actions of a huge union-busting public relations company headed by Sen. Hillary Clinton's top political strategist, Mark Penn -- and getting no satisfactory response.

The prodigious Penn, a pollster and counselor to the Clintons since 1995, has risen to the commanding heights of the public relations and research business over the three decades since he entered politics. Having started in a tiny, two-man polling operation in a New York City mayoral campaign, he is now the CEO of Burson-Marsteller Inc., one of the planet's largest P.R. shops, with corporate clients ranging from Microsoft to Shell Oil and Pfizer. For progressive voters, those connections should raise questions about Penn's dominant role in the Clinton campaign, especially because he has reportedly boasted about the business benefits of his political power.

Smart, skillful and tenacious, Penn is also the ultimate expression of a long-standing trend among political consultants -- that is, claiming to serve the public interest during election years while selling their connections and knowledge to special interests every year. For him and many of his colleagues, the affluence that accrues to influence shapes their attitudes (and their advice to candidates). They tend to reject populism and almost any position that might lead to conflict with their corporate benefactors.

much more...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/06/16/hillary_and_mark_penn/

[papau]

1. First the Nation - now Salon - resort to crap about a pollester joining a company 18 months ago as

CEO - all because his new company has a unit that frames the message - anti-union - for major corporations.

So now Salon is claiming that Unions have raised questions and gotten no response -

As with all articles that refuse to name names, this one smells like a lie passing itself off as an assertion.

Andy is on the wrong side of health care and is anti-Hillary, why I don't know - but I would not be surprised to find one of his staff making these noises. I would be surprised to find any other unions making noises - perhaps those unions aligned with him are whispering only into Salon's ear, - and I doubt Salon is even trying to claim those in the the AFL/CIO are demanding his head.

[flpoljunkie]

2. The fact that Joe Conason is writing this means something. He is not a Clinton basher.

[papau]

14. I suspect the un-named union source are the anti-Hillary folks - but until the Nation egged them

on, the AFL-CIO's John Sweeney and SEIU's Andy Stern were not worried about the meaning of a pollster on Hillary's staff.

But Hillary does not have the union vote locked up - SEIU's Andy Stern uses the best phrases for Obama - calling him a "a rock star". Clinton has to be satisfied with "exceeded expectations", with Edwards being giving points for his "incredible" support of unions.

Stern says nice things about single payer national health, but then on Feb 7, 2007 he puts out - with WalMart and other corporations" a plan called "Better Health Care Together" http://www.seiu.org/media/bhct_principles.cfm where the "plan" is a set of "principles" for achieving a new American health care system by 2012:

1. Every person in America must have quality, affordable health insurance coverage.

2. Individuals have a responsibility to maintain and protect their health - it is also fair to expect that people take care of themselves as best they can, given that others are asked to share the cost of illness when it occurs.

3. America must dramatically improve the value it receives for every health care dollar via implementing electronic medical records, aligning payment policy with quality and effectiveness, and pooling purchasing power to drive improvements in the health care system can help advance this agenda. Giving consumers more comparative information and a greater role and responsibility in their health care spending decisions is an important step toward improving system-wide value.


4. It is time to unleash the creativity of American business, labor unions, the nonprofit sector, government and health care workers to make happen a slowing of the growth of health costs even while expanding access, improving quality and assuring continued innovation.

5. We believe that businesses, governments, and individuals all should contribute to managing and financing a new American health care system. Employers and unions must have the option of affordable, quality coverage that makes sense for them. Government must play a stronger role (a tax contribution) in ensuring the availability of affordable, quality health coverage.


Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y, greets Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern during the New Leadership on Health Care Presidential Forum at The Cox Pavilion, Saturday, March 24, 2007 in Las Vegas.

Harold Ickes, a longtime Clinton adviser and ambassador to organized labor. "Mark has told us that he is taking extra steps to assure people on the outside that he does not engage with clients that may be involved in controversial issues. The phrase 'Chinese wall' has been used." The Clinton camp believes it has put the matter to rest. "Mark is a extremely valued and vital member of our team and Hillary is pleased that he has not done this work in the past and will be recusing himself from any possible involvement in the future," says Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson.

[jackbourassa]

43. Is it possible for any Clinton supporter to answe a question...

...or refute a charge without resorting to questioning the loyalties of the person who brings up a legitimate point?

NAFTA alone should give labor people pause about Hillary.

[flpoljunkie]

46. More from the article on CEO Penn's firm's "labor relations" work...

Among the most controversial aspects of Penn's firm's business, from the liberal perspective at least, come under the category of "labor relations," a traditional euphemism for suppressing workers and thwarting their right to organize. ]Before Penn scrubbed his firm's Web site, it advertised this specialty and noted the firm's capacity to confront "Organized Labor's coordinated campaigns whether they are in conjunction with organizing or contract negotiating." Not the most graceful wording, but the idea is clear enough.

And in practice, as Berman reported, Burson executives have used these skills against two major unions seeking to organize workers at Cintas, the nationwide uniform-supply company, which may be the single most ambitious union drive in North America today.

So here was a conflict of interest that seemed both direct and salient. Sen. Clinton is a declared supporter of labor rights who often tells workers that she is on their side. Besides, she badly wants the support of the Teamsters and UNITE HERE, the unions seeking to organize the Cintas employees, not to mention all the other labor organizations that might help her win the nomination and the presidency. But on the issue of workers rights, her top advisor has been on the other side.

Or has he? Penn said that he had nothing to do with the Cintas account, even though he is Burson's CEO. Moreover, he took offense at the implication that he might be anti-union. He recalled that his father had helped to organize the poultry workers union in Queens, N.Y., where he grew up. Unsurprisingly, his indignation and sentimentality did little to persuade union officials of his sincerity. They know very well that Penn is among the leading figures in the Democratic Leadership Council, whose budget is underwritten by major corporations and whose policies favor business over labor. Even the lunchboxes at DLC conferences display corporate logos.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/06/16/hillary_and_mark_penn/

[Bjorn Against]

3. Penn has been known as a very anti-union, pro-war consultant for a long time

For Hillary to give him such a prominent spot in her campaign does raise some big red flags that should cause people a lot of concern. If she will appoint such a hack to her campaign what kind of hacks will she appoint to her cabinet if she gets elected?

[papau]

5. I was told that and researched it - not one item came up that suggested Penn was anti-union n/t

n/t

[Bjorn Against]

15. Did you even read the OP? That certainly suggests Penn is anti-union.

The guy was CEO of a union-busting PR firm, how could you possibly claim there is nothing to suggest that he is anti-union?

[papau]

40. He is 18 months in a new job re activities that occurred at the contract renewal in 2003-your point?

Cintas is an evil company -

but while "union busting" is not a good fit for them (they disregard contracts and violate labor law - they don't "bust" the union) - it is a zero fit for Mark Penn and his first 18 months on the job.

[bread_and_roses]

13. The same kind of hacks who have no problem profiteering from NAFTA

no doubt.

[Totally Committed]

4. Joe Conason is the author of "The Hunting of the President"-- about the Right Wing Conspiracy

to take Pres. Clinton down. He was also an ardent and vocal Clinton defender during impeachement on the "news" shows. The fact that he wrote this indeicates to me that it is a genuine and honest article, full of the truth as he knows it.

TC

[papau]

17. The facts he hangs the story on are the two letters to the Clinton campaign - there does not

appear more there as I read the article.

There may, or may not be a union endorsement, coming up later this year. It will be interesting to see if the Nation and Salon are able to affect what happens.

[Bjorn Against]

19. No, the fact he hangs the story on is the fact that Penn was CEO of a union-busting PR firm

[Totally Committed]

24. That's the way I read it, too.

He has never been a "Clinton hater", so what he has written here, I believe, is probably the case.

TC

[papau]

28. Penn remains CEO - recused from all but Microsoft contract duties - 18 months as CEO and what "union

busting" activity has occurred during that time?

Can we say none?

Cintas violates contracts, and violates labor law - but how is that the fault of the PR firm they hire? If labor law is not being enforced that is the DA's fault - and under Bush, the DA is too busy looking for those Democrats that are committing voter fraud.

The contract war with Cintas was 2002/2003 - 3 years before Penn joined the company. And the union won and forced the company to back down from the health benefit change they wanted.

[flpoljunkie]

33. Conason's response on Burson-Marsteller CEO Penn's "recusal..."

Whatever Hoffa, Raynor and their colleagues may have wanted to hear, it is hard to imagine they were satisfied with the Clinton campaign's response via Penn. Essentially, he replied that he hadn't done anything against labor. He didn't step down from his executive position at Burson (as even Karl Rove did in 1999 when he sold his consulting firm to work for George W. Bush's presidential campaign), not even temporarily. He certainly didn't order Burson to cease all union-busting activities. He merely "recused" himself from work on the Cintas account, which he insisted he had never worked on anyway, citing a convenient "conscience clause" available to all Burson executives who might find a particular account morally repugnant. (It isn't clear whether activating the conscience clause means giving up a share of revenues derived from the repulsive activities, or merely bestowing a patina of moral hygiene on the dirty money.)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/06/16/hillary_and_mark_penn/

[papau]

38. he loses any revenue from that account - as I said Conason thinks Karl Rove showed us how

a moral, proper, trustworthy person would handle business relationships in their company that offend.

[flpoljunkie]

45. Conason questions whether he loses revenue from the account. You have information otherwise?

[bedpanartist]

7. if you are for working families

You don't hire union busters, or those who enable them.

You throw rotten vegetables at them.

[bedpanartist]

8. I would kill myself before voting for another Clinton

Pro NAFTA

Pro War on Drugs

Pro War on Iraq

These two are another in a long, long line of corporate charlatans posing as friends of the poor and average.

I would vote for my garbageman first. He's helped me a lot more over the years.

How many more lawyers do we need to realize that as a profession, lawyers do not know how to operate or lead. They do know, however, how to get in the way.

Also, I am an elected labor union official, although this post is only my personal opinion.

[MissWaverly]

11. and I am a non-union worker and I agree with you

the Clintons have had their turn at running the country, a full eight years, that should be enough.

[LeFleur1]

23. The Clintons?

"The Clintons have had their turn at running the country".

What?
Bill Clinton had a turn at running the country. I'm constantly amazed at the people who believe that Hillary was President of the United States and has a presidential record.
She was never President. She has no presidential record. She is not an appendage of Bill. She is her own woman.

[MissWaverly]

29. Hillary was First Lady the same as Eleanor

and I have read transcripts where Bill discussed policy with her, she was an active particpant in the White House. No, I do not
think of her as an "appendage" but I do think she had a vocal role in the Clinton Whitehouse.

[bedpanartist]

32. he even advertised her as a 2 for 1 deal

when running for president.

Yeah, she was so uninvolved, out shopping for native American dream catchers at truck stops all over America and all. :sarcasm:

[MissWaverly]

35. yes, I believe that she had a major hand in setting policy

I want a candidate that is fully committed to working America and it's needs.

[Totally Committed]

22. I have to say I agree with you.

With an allegience to the DLC comes a host of issues that are contrary to my own. I will no longer vote for "the lesser evil". Never again.

TC

[Donna Zen]

51. Thanks TC

I rue this day that I come to a Democratic forum to read words defending union busting. Penn has the ethics of a louse or he would have just said "no". Instead he said: show me the money. In fact, that's what this whole damn campaign is about. That's what the pundits talk about, the candidates' brag about if they can, and what it comes down to.

And since the subject is unions, I'm struck by the fact that during the Clinton presidency the unions lost membership and the income gap grew wider. Now how did that happen?

[amandabeech]

27. Lawyers think that they know everything, from purchasing and setting

up computer systems to designing HVAC for their offices.

Of course, they should stick to their little areas of law.

Speaking as a lawyer myself. Far too many of them are disgusting idiots.

Including too many of the union-side labor lawyers that I've worked with and known.

[bread_and_roses]

12. Sweeny, Stern, Hoffa, and Raynor aren't names? They are cited

in the article.

And just what is "crap" about concern over a candidate claiming to support Labor while hiring the CEO of a union-busting firm? Are you at all familiar with the tactics used by these outfits? The mega-$$s that are spent destroying organizing campaigns? Know anything about Cintas?

[papau]

18. She hired a polster and framer of issues that is a very strong Democrat.

Cintas sucks and is a thorn in the side of the SEIU.

[Bjorn Against]

21. She hired a pollster that wants Democrats to be more like Republicans n/t

[Totally Committed]

25. Bingo. Ain't THAT the truth!

TC

[papau]

31. What a great analysis - now Obama'a advisors favoring destroying Social Security means Obama wants

to destroy Social Security with private accounts - despite Obama saying that is not his intention?

This looking at supporters and advisers is one heck of a fun game that tells us a lot about a Candidate, right?

I posted the Obama advisers a month ago and if I get real bored I'll post the advisers to the others, and note who those advisers have hung with or done business with in the past - information that will be real informative to our decision as to who to support in the primary - right?

I suggest there is enough out there to hate Clinton - or love Clinton - already - if you are voting on personality, and if you are concerned about issues, we are just finding out the various positions.

It would be nice if those - saying so and so's position on a given issue is not what they really think because they lie on everything they say - folks could point to a lie about a policy position.

[Totally Committed]

34. I'm not in either camp. I don't like Clinton at all, and I'm beginning to feel some disaffection

for Obama for the way his camapign seems to be going and for his positions on some issues.

I realize you must be a Hillary supporter, and I'm sorry you are so upset by this article. But, the truth is Joe Conason is a straight shooter who knows both Clintons well, and has for years. He has never, IIRC, ever attacked either of them, and has defended them in the past. So, when people like me, who have become disgusted and disillusioned with Hill and Bill read what he has written, we are very apt to believe and/or agree with him.

This is going to be a long primary season. If I were you, I'd pace myself and not get so upset so soon, especially at an article by a well-respected source.

TC

[papau]

39. I support all our candidates - and my heros like Krugman and Conason on occasion can

actually be wrong headed - indeed stupid - as they try to convey their feelings rather than their analysis.

A well respected source is always a good - but better is using your own mind to determine what is really being said - and if it is as important as the speaker is trying to imply.

It is going to be a long year - I liked Obama until it became obvious that he was a small step conservative - guaranteed to go in the right direction and get something done - but not likely to get the changes I want (on most things DK is the fellow I like - but fate has given DK a face and voice and height that precludes his winning anything). Richardson's energy proposal is the best out there, in my opinion - but he does not handle himself well in interviews, Clinton is spot on as to analysis and solution - but is on probation in my world until I see her health plan - and even then "electable" needs to be answered. Edwards has interesting ideas that I could live with, but he continues to poll poorly.

The only thing I am sure of is that I do not like cheap hits, I do not like hits about minor things or hits that are illogical, and indeed I do not like our tearing down any of the candidates 8 months before the first caucus/election.

[Bjorn Against]

36. The people a candidate has on their payroll are fair game...

after all one of the biggest powers a President has is to choose the people in their cabinet, if they are going to choose hacks as advisers then I have to worry about who they will choose to head key government agencies.

[papau]

41. No one is saying Mark Penn is a hack - indeed he is one of the best - if not the best n/t

n/t

[Bjorn Against]

47. I am saying he is a hack...

The guy loves corporate dollars much more than progressive ideals. I remember him campaigning with Lieberman in 2004 and telling everyone that it was necessary for the Democrats to get behind the occupation in Iraq. He is a hack, and I am sure many others here would agree with me.

[papau]

48. Penn was hired by Lieberman for President 2004 as its pollster/adviser- to frame and sell Lieberman'

positions. So in that position would you expect the pollster to dump on his Boss's positions? Of course not. But there are indeed those that remember Penn selling Lieberman and conclude he is therefore a GOP plant and evil to the causes of Democratic Party net-roots.

I do not like the way Mark Penn dismisses the net-roots just because Dean lost - I think he is very wrong. I also think looking back to the fact that Democrats haven't won more than 50 percent of the vote in a presidential election since 1976 (or more than 50.1% since 64) and coming to the conclusion we must be seen as close in policy to GOP policy - which is what Penn is said to believe - is wrong. I believe that if he is giving this advice in 08, as he is said to have given it in 04 - those that take that advice will lose - as they did in 04. A strategy consistent with garnering support in the South and some Midwestern states is the wrong approach, in my opinion. This will be an election that asks where do you want to take the nation and why - and not a small change/play well with the GOP/we provide competence election - in my opinion (this is also why I see Obama having a hard time getting his poll numbers out of 25% to 33% range).

If Hillary uses Penn for polling and framing she has made a great hire - if she uses him for policy, she is screwed. So far I do not see her using him for policy. Perhaps Penn is correct that the media is so totally controlled by the GOP via they ownership and managements GOP leanings that only a GOP LITE Democrat can get enough good press to win. While I do see the tight GOP control of the media, I do not see them as picking a horse in this race so far - they just do not like the current GOP alternatives.

Jeff Koopersmith has written that the fact that 80% of Americans who now embrace the concept of universal health care, and the well over 50% who want out of Iraq now, means that this is an election where Americans are ready for a sea change. I believe and hope he is correct.

I see nothing wrong with Penn's current advice for 08 - don't let it look like the Dem's pulled the plug before Iraq failure was obvious, kill the tax cuts for the rich while keeping the image as tax-cutters for the middle class (could we have a middle class tax cut via a 2% reduction in the Social Security payroll tax offset and paid for via ending the wage cap on the tax, and then extend the "payroll tax" to include investment income via an adjustment item in the IRS FIT annual 1040 filing - using this new money to fund a a basic coverage universal health?), embrace and re-frame the concept of family values - - but these ideas, in my opinion, are secondary to the leadership attitude and acting like you have convictions that lead you to sea change proposals for the country. Democrats should try reversing Reagan and say Government is not the problem - incompetent government and lack of regulatory control of corporations to prevent your jobs from being shipped overseas is the problem.

But getting back to the hiring of Mark Penn as evil and a sign that Hillary is evil - nonsense IMHO

[Capn Sunshine]

49. well, he has to fit in with the rest of her organization

:bounce:

[papau]

20. here is the Hoffa & Raynor letter (that references the Nation story) - the game

the Nation is playing seems to be to get Penn to take a formal leave of absence from Burson-Marsteller - which the Nation already pre any such leave of absence declares is an inadequate response. If Hillary allows herself to be pushed around by the Nation over this molehill, she will not deserve to be president - in my opinion.




Dear Senator Clinton:

It is with distress that we write you today. The Nation recently posted a story about Mark Penn, your pollster and chief strategist, detailing some of his firm's direct support for anti-union/anti-worker campaigns. His firm's activities in the effort to undermine workers right to organize at Cintas, a campaign our unions are involved in, is particularly disheartening.

We wanted to bring this to your attention since we value your positions on EFCA and many other workers issues and do not want to see you or the Democratic Party embarrassed.

We look forward to hearing back from you on this matter.

Sincerely,

James P. Hoffa Teamsters General President

Bruce S. Raynor UNITE HERE General President

[disndat]

6. Conason is the soul

of honesty and integrity. He has been a defender of the Clintons when they were attacked by devious sources. So I believe him, every word of this article.

[Totally Committed]

26. I absolutely agree.

He has always been an honest broker where not only the CLintons, but the Democratic arty is concerned. I trust him to be right on this.

I also think, give these very points, the article is absolutely on-target. Journalistic integrity all the way.

TC

[Fredda Weinberg]

30. Indeed ... it's 'Clinton service'

I wouldn't make a habit of it, but exposing delicate subjects now will sanitize issues before the election. This is step-ahead thinking and always useful. It turns ammunition into duller debating tools.

Still, there's a step ahead, beyond Clintons ... so our ideas have to mature. I have followed Conason's work for years - we may need a new generation of journalists to do ourselves justice.

[jefferson_dem]

9. Thanks for posting this. Conason is a "straight shooter."

Those who dismiss this piece as another "smear screed" are mistaken.

[Tellurian]

10. I've always admired Conason's writing

Not only for style and content, but for thought provoking articulation. In this case, he accomplishes the task with
3 little words..."Or has he?" Penn has all his bases covered and if someone think they can prove a negative..hallalujh!..
more power to them. Senator Clinton is the one walking the fine line between the two. She respects both sides of the argument and is the best anyone can do under the circumstances.

[bread_and_roses]

16. Anyone who "respects" union busting is no friend of Labor or any working

person in this Country or around the world. Just what "side" of union-busters is to be respected? Or are we supposed to support cheap-labor Profiteers now?

[Tellurian]

37. Any potential negotiation between two parties

has to begin with respect to both sides. Whether you believe they deserve it or not. Of course, the desirous outcome would be in deference to delivering job security, a good living wage, benefits and retirement benefits to the worker.

The corporate scales have to be rebalanced from 80/20 back to 60/40 to make it happen. Corporations are starting to realize cheap-labor (fatigue) (imo) essentially has not delivered the Utopian solution bent on maximizing corporate profits it once thought was their ultimate goal. Simply put, 'You can't KILL the goose that lays the golden egg!' The golden goose is 'People'. It is their cash flow that allow corporations to thrive. No jobs=No$$$=No cash flow, flowing through their coffers. I believe, Sen Clinton understands this dilemma real well because she understands people have a legitimate claim to their needs and deserve to live the American dream. Sen Clinton has had great experience in the past with corporate thinking. And due to her experience with corporations, she has the ability to strike the right balance benefiting the workforce because she knows what she's talking about.. Union busting will become a thing of the past and as such, irrelevant in the overall long run.

[bread_and_roses]

42. I'm afraid that I lack your faith in either

Clinton, the ability of Corporations to weigh long-term economic health over short-term profits, the very basis of your premise in a NAFTA world, where Corps can always find cheaper labor.

Nor do I see why the equation should be 60/40.

It would appear from your post that your support for this move is rooted in a vision of a better world that you believe Clinton will promote, but your leap of faith is beyond me.

Clinton can hire anyone she wants for her campaign, of course, and hiring a union-busting corporate shill doesn't surprise me in the least. But to do so while seeking support from Labor and claiming to stand in any way for working people is the height of hypocrisy.

[Tellurian]

44. So, your problem is a Leap of Faith?

No, what I'm getting at is the cheaper labor thing hasn't worked out for them. And, just maybe, they are tired of the Off-shore accounts, the secrecy, the demanding Bush kick-backs? Not for any given moment, think that some CEO of a well known company is allowed to keep his mega million wages in his pocket do you? This has been a kick back scheme all along. Bush made it look like he was doing them a favor. The Clintons' don't need the money...and they're not GREEDY... wake-up!

[Capn Sunshine]

50. This is logical

except I have a problem with your characterization of the Clintons not needing the money. They do. Because it gets what they do need : power.

[illinoisprogressive]

52. penn has been with the Clintons since 95. he was instrumental in making policy pro corporate

after clinton lost the house and the senate the clintons were advised to be more republican by penn.
They took to it like a duck to water.

[flpoljunkie]

53. Conason: Even the lunchboxes at the DLC conferences display corporate logos

They (union officials) know very well that Penn is among the leading figures in the Democratic Leadership Council, whose budget is underwritten by major corporations and whose policies favor business over labor. Even the lunchboxes at DLC conferences display corporate logos.


Inset photo, Mark Penn.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/06/16/hillary_and_mark_penn/

[rinsd]

54. Wow so Joe Conason is ripping off Ariana Bermanington now (nt)