Hilda Solis' Confirmation at Labor Dept. Slowed
We reported yesterday on Republican objections to moving forward on confirming two of Barack Obama's top environmental nominees.
At first the delay was reported as a Senate "hold," but it turned out to be a different breed of slowdown -- Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) had been quoted as raising the alarm, yet he told us that it was nothing but a misunderstanding. By the evening, the objection had been officially lifted and the environmental nominees were approved.
Now it looks like the same thing is happening with Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), the president's nominee to head the Department of Labor.
Technically, Solis' nomination isn't being "held" -- that occurs when a nominee has won committee approval and a senator tries to delay a full vote. Solis has not received a vote yet in the Senate labor committee, chaired by Ted Kennedy (D-MA), but GOPers are slowing down her confirmation over the so-called "card check" bill, a major priority of the labor movement that would allow workers to organize more easily.
Politico had this story first, reporting last week that Solis' hedging response on the card check issue had left GOPers frustrated. And I've got to back them up on this one; the nominee was indeed bizarrely un-forthcoming about her plans on the union organizing proposal.
Instead of defending or criticizing the legislation, she offered a deferral to President Obama and, as Politico notes, told Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) she was "not qualified" to talk about right-to-work laws. There's nothing wrong with taking a politically contentious stand, but Solis didn't take much of a stand at all.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
It really was rather disturbing that she wouldn't take a forthright stand. Since she's been a staunch supporter of labor her whole political career (and thus looked like a great pick), I can only assume that she was instructed to waffle by her Administration handlers. That's a bad sign.
January 23, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans, with their lab rats on acid brains, are convinced that card check is a big winner of an issue for them and they were determined to try to make this nomination the opening salvo in their noble fight against higher wages. Now, however, they just look like petulant children.
Works for me.
January 23, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if they think it's a winner as much as it's anathema to their constituency (or what's left of it). I think the attitude is "If you don't do anything else, for Crissake, stop this card-check legislation!" This could be the one place where they make a stand.
January 23, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fear they may be having some success. The debate over EFCA is entirely about card check. Since it takes some explaining, whereas the conservative objection is quick to state, that leaves us fighting on their turf in a battle I'm not sure we can win. We have to do better making the debate include the other parts of the bill, not just explain why secret ballots aren't as secret as the public is being told.
January 23, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having been through a union organizing drive, I have two reservations about a card-check provision, both of which could be addressed in the legislation:
1. Organizers are often not entirely honest about the meaning of signing a card. If this is to be equivalent to a vote, there needs to be a statement on the card in BIG BOLD LETTERS to the effect that this is equivalent to a vote for a union. People need to be able to rescind that card if they later change their mind, although I'd expect few to actually do so even if they do change their mind. Which brings me to my second reservation...
2. An election is a snapshot of the desires of the workers at a given time. Cards can be accumulated over a several year period. People may have changed their minds. It can't be said that because you have cards representing 51% of the workers that 51% of the workers want a union. There needs to be a sunset provision on the cards so that only cards signed over a reasonably contemporaneous period of time will count.
January 23, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't pass card check you don't get the other provisions that keep your boss from firing you for wanting a union, that forces businesses to negotiate in good faith when the union wins the election, and puts a stop to a whole of lot of other ugly behavior by big business.
MBF businesses love to stall negotiations while pressuring employees, lying to them, feeding them and their neighbors full of propaganda until the employees feel the union isn't worth it. Sadly your provision is in union busting 101.
January 23, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NLRB doesn't accept cards that are more than six months old.
There's nothing in EFCA that changes this policy.
January 23, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, just answer the question already, Hilda. It won't matter. They don't have the votes to block you.
January 23, 2009 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blue Dogs never vote for what they believe in. They vote for what they believe is "in".
January 23, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops! Posted to wrong article!
January 23, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
On a side, it's not winning the GOP any points within the Latino community. Funny how the progressive nominees are the ones that the GOP finds issues with.
January 23, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought that Hilda Solis' response was entirely appropriate. I don't see how its her place to announce a position for the Administration on this bill. Do nominees normally take public stances on pending legislation?
January 23, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely yes, when it's one that's supposed to be a Dem priority and that the President already voted for as a Senator.
January 23, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. If the Senators want to know President Obama's position on the legislation, then they should ask him or the appropriate person on his staff. It just isn't a nominee's place to be commenting on legislative priorities for the Administration.
January 23, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is it imperative that Solis take a stand on the card check issue? She is nominated for Secretary of Labor, and the card-check issue as well as the larger issue of union organizing will come under the aegis of the National Labor Relations Board. It really is just the opening salvo in a larger war, but it's like asking the Secretary of Commerce nominee (whenever that happens)for his/her views on the TARP legislation. Nice to know where they stand, but their agency/department will have little to do with it. Basically, it's just Republicans being obstructionist.
January 23, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Elana, I disagree on this one. I watched that hearing, and Solis repeatedly stated that both she and Obama had supported the Employee Free Choice Act as Members of Congress. What she refused to do was to tell the Republicans if and/or how quickly President Obama might move the Act forward. I'm sure there were two reasons for that. One - Obama hadn't even taken office, and probably hadn't decided his view on how quickly to move on the bill. And two - if you think about it - Congress is the branch of our government that legislates. I'm sure Ted Kennedy will consult Obama on the timing, but if Obama were to tell Kennedy that he didn't want the bill introduced this year, Kennedy could still introduce it and pass it.
January 24, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder whether she was under instruction to stone wall?
January 24, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink