I opened my e-mail to find this little ditty...

Dear friend:

Four years ago, I asked for your support as we kicked off my mayoral campaign. (Yeah, you even came to my house and talked to my neighbors) With your support, we won a resounding victory and have begun to make the District the world class city we know it can be. (Wasn't much of a choice now, was there?) Now just a few days before our 1st finance filing of this campaign, I'm asking you to support me again by making a contribution online (I'd rather eat my left breast) at http://no,Iwon'tprovidethelink.com.

We're at 87% of our January 31st fundraising goal, so your immediate online contribution is critical. Let's show everyone how excited DC is about the work that we have done (and now, maybe I'll eat the right breast). Contribute now at http://no,Iwon'tprovidethelink.com.

Please feel free to forward this to your friends and encourage to give now. (Look I am, I'm recommending they keep their money and give it to your opponent, I've got my fingers crossed that you get an opponent) Thank you for your continued support. (Clearly, you don't read my blog Mayor, nor do your cronies. After all, I'm just one of the little people, so why bother? That seems to sum you up to me...why bother with the little people.)

Sincerely,
Adrian M. Fenty
Mayor, Washington, DC

Yeah, the bold comments are mine. It's just what I thought as I grabbed the garbage can to hurl into it while reading his garbage. Can't wait to see his next appeal.

Read More...

Wal-Mart. Yeah, I know, no surprise. What was surprising, to me at least, is despite having known about these meetings, I never got to read any first hand accounts of them, until today. From Dailykos:

The way Wal-Mart likes to scare associates away from organizing is to attack the union itself. In their brainwashing video, they show organizers as slick, professional bullshitters. Sort of like used car salesmen or ambulance-chasing lawyers. You can visualize the stereotype. They then show actors (I wonder if they are SAG actors?) posing as associates in hypothetical situations. In situation A, we are a happy, non-union store. In situation B, the evil union has taken the store over. The first hypothetical situation is about a spill in grocery. One associate asks another to guard a spill while he cleans it up. Ok, a normal everyday occurrence. Then we see what happens when THE EVIL EVIL UNION has taken control. The associate now says "We can't clean this spill, the maintenance workers are under a union contract. Only they are allowed to do this work. Further, for attempting to do this work in violation of the contract, you can be fined up to $20000". Uhhhh, WHAT!?!? I look around the room, to see if the room is actually buying this malarkey. Then in the next situation, the store manager and a supervisor are deciding on who would be a good associate to promote to department manager. No one has ever consulted ME on promotions, but whatever. Then we see what would happen if THE SATANIC BABY EATING UNION were in the store. Now the slimey shop steward is in the meeting, and he vetoes the store manager's suggestion for a promotion. Mr. shop steward then goes to tell the most senior member in the department (who coincidentally is also the most unpopular) that he has the job. Um, yeah sure. I bet if real unions had micromanaging power like that, GM, Ford, and Chrysler would not be up shit creek right now.

I have never worked for Wal-Mart. I've read Nickle and Dimed: On (not) Getting By in America and after putting myself through college working 3rd shift as a waitress, well, let's just say that I get this stuff, it's just that no one ever made such a complete and utter show of being anti-union. They threatened to close restaurants and forges, but no one ever went to the level of union-bashing that I've heard Wal-Mart does. In fact, they actually come right out and say it at this meeting:

An eternity later (it was actually probably 2 hours), the meeting ends. We all shuffle back to our cars, so we can clock out and get the hell out of there. Some associates are still talking amongst themselves about what just transpired. But what was lingering in my brain was something Charlie said. Something that made my stomach sick. "To combat the union, we are having meetings with every level of the stores. We already had meetings with the salaried managers. We are currently conducting meetings with you supervisors. And soon, we will start having meetings with the hourly associates." I thought about all those hourly associates. People who have spent decades building this company. People who will now be subject to Wal-Mart's bünd meetings. People who have no skills, and so much to lose if they were to be fired. My friends. I felt powerless in that meeting. I wanted to stand up and scream "You are all damned liars and you know it!". But I kept silent. What good would it have done. Now, all over the country, thousands will know the cruelty of Wal-Mart intimidation and union-busting.

That is why it is so important that Congress and President Obama pass the Employee Free Choice Act. No one should have to live their lives feeling defeated and powerless. No one should have to hold their head low just to feed their families. This is not just about fair pay and health insurance. Its about dignity. Its about respect. Its about being able to go to work, without having to be afraid anymore.

I highly recommend a full read of the piece and if you get a minute, read the comments, they're amazing.

Read More...

I got the news about Fox running an anti-UAW story about the union's purchase and running of a training facility called Black Lake. It really didn't rate high up on my radar because not only is it not news, it's really just a distraction at best. But you know how the right wing is, all a twitter with negativity when it comes to working folks and their unions. So, Nathan Newman wrote a DKos diary on it and damned if it didn't make me take a minute to take note:

Essentially, local union leaders and activists are asked to use a week of vacation to sit in union training sessions for a week; in exchange, the union covers lodging and food costs and keeps their kids entertained. The union, like every union, has an ongoing need to train its activists, most of whom are volunteers, and Black Lake is used as an attractive venue to provide that education and build that sense of solidarity among members. How many venues exist for training people in labor values while providing a day camp for their kids? The cost in the open market is no doubt many multiples of what the UAW has spent on Black Lake in the last few years.

This newest attack on the UAW is a basic attack on the idea that unions should be able to engage in the kind of staff training and community building that is common with every other institution in the world that holds conferences and retreats in this world. In fact, we have cities and states subsidizing the building of massive convention centers for business meetings around the country on top of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on conventions. Yet the few million spent by the UAW on its training meetings is actually worth column space?

He's spot on, you really need to head over and read about Black Lake and get a feel for why it's important to provide these sorts of training sessions, it was a real education for me. You know, I think it actually made me care about the topic.

Read More...

I found this front paged over at Dailykos:

Ah, the carnage of the the long goodbye:

WASHINGTON — President Bush issued an executive order on Monday that denies collective bargaining rights to about 8,600 federal employees who work in law enforcement, intelligence and other agencies responsible for national security.

Mr. Bush said it would be inconsistent with "national security requirements" to allow those employees to engage in collective bargaining with respect to the conditions of their employment.

Among those affected are 5,000 employees of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which is now part of the Justice Department.

The text of the executive order can be found here.

Because nothing ensures our national security quite like people who aren't allowed to organize for decent pay and working conditions. Seems to me these are exactly the types of employees you would want to keep off the "disgruntled worker" list.

This is most excellent, isn't it?

Not only has this administration tossed workers aside, destroyed enforcement of labor laws, reduced funding for OSHA, MSHA and fought against regulations for just about everything, here, they even take a pot shot at the employees at Energy, Transportation, Homeland Security, Treasury and of course, Justice, from the White House:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7103(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, and in order to reflect the effects of the reorganization and restructuring of the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation, and the Treasury on their subdivisions exempted from coverage under the Federal Labor-Management Relations Program, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Determinations. The subdivisions of the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation, and the Treasury set forth in sections 2 through 6 of this order are hereby determined to have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work. It is further determined that chapter 71 of title 5, United States Code, cannot be applied to these subdivisions in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations.

And just what offices are affected, here are just a few:

Department of Energy:
(e) The Savannah River Operations Office.

Homeland Security:
(a) Office of the Military Advisor.

(b) The following office within the Management Directorate:

(1) Office of Security.

(c) Office of Operations Coordination.

(d) Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement.

(h) The following offices and subdivisions within United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement:

(1) The Office of Investigations.

(2) The Office of International Affairs.

(3) The Office of Intelligence.

(4) The National Incident Response Unit.

(i) The following office within the Transportation Security Administration:

(1) The Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service.

Isn't this a most excellent list of random agencies and subdivisions?

ec. 4. Department of Justice. Executive Order 12171 of November 19, 1979, as amended, is further amended by:

(a) revising subsection (g) of section 1-209 to read as follows:

"(g) National Security Division."; and

(b) adding to the end of section 1-209 the following new subsection:

"(h) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives."

It's pretty far reaching for a list of obscure agencies. The funny thing is that at a general schedule 13 and up, most (I think all, but am not positive) postions are actually exempted positions. Which means you are unable to be represented by a union. Now, even the lower grades in this offices are excluded? Seriously? Gee it's like getting slapped in the face while someone's pissing in your mouth. At what point is enough enough?

Read More...

So, I’m over at OxDown and reading e-mail when I come across this cool piece by Michael Whitney. First, let me just say, dude, right on target, and then let me also say, how much Wal-Mart cash do you think flows into this anti-union campaign of McCain and his sweetheart, Berman? I’m guessing, it’s a whole shitload. I mean, they’re shoveling shit, why couldn’t it be a shit load. (note I covered this a little yesterday, too with Not So Fast CNN)

Okay, I’ve had my say, now hear it from Michael.

McCain's New Stump Speech Stands Up for CEO Contributors over the Middle Class

By: Michael Whitney Wednesday October 15, 2008

Over the weekend, John McCain debuted a new stump speech, filling his usual message to the party faithful with plenty of red meat for conservative activists. Introduced as a "feisty ... comeback" speech, McCain lambasts Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for having the gall to "concede defeat in Iraq" and "raise taxes."

But in the midst of McCain's new message - mixed in-between the traditional conservative mantras of taxing and spending - is a new line in which McCain talks about unions and takes the side of his CEO contributors on the issue. Here's the whole paragraph; I'll bold the key line:

Now, my friends, let me give you the state of the race today and some straight talk," McCain said. "We have 22 days to go. We're six points down. The national media has written us off. Senator Obama is measuring the drapes and planning with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to raise taxes, increase spending — take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections, and concede defeat in Iraq — and concede defeat in Iraq.

So why is McCain saying Obama would "take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections?" First - brace yourself - McCain is lying. Obama supports no such thing.

What Obama does support is the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill backed by Obama and virtually every other Democrat in Congress and across the country. What McCain supports is giving unfettered veto power for CEOs to deny working people the opportunity to follow the American Dream.

The Employee Free Choice Act gives workers the free choice to form a union, taking away businesses' veto power on the matter. Basically, once 50% +1 of workers in a workplace say they want a union, they get their union if the Employee Free Choice Act becomes law. But today, even if 100% of workers want a union, the employer can veto it. Rick Perlstein explains the situation well, via economist Dean Baker:

The only change with the Employee Free Choice Act is whether card check recognition is at the discretion of the employer of the worker. In other words, it changes absolutely ZERO about whether the right of workers to organize is determined by secret ballot or not. The only thing it changes is who gets to decide the manner of certification, workers or employers.

Why do workers need this Free Choice to form unions? And why is McCain all worked up about "secret ballots?" Ezra Klein explains the dire straits in which workers who want to form unions find themselves these days:

About 49 percent of employers openly threaten to close down a worksite when faced with a unionization drive. Untold more tell individual workers, in captive meetings, that jobs will be lost. 30 percent make good on the threat in real time, firing workers who engage in union activities. 82 percent hire unionbusting consulting firms which teach them how to most effectively shutter a union drive while either technically staying in the limits of the law, or breaking it in such a way that the gains will outweigh the eventual fines.

All the concern over the possible implications of EFCA would be fair enough if these same folks evinced even an ounce of anxiety over the reality that workers are being threatened, intimidated, and even fired if they dare try and organize. [...] The space we're currently occupying is brutal, and makes an utter mockery of the idea of elections. Hearing the status quo defended as free and fair is like imagining a presidential election where you can vote however you'd like, but anyone who votes against the incumbent party is informed they will lose all access to Social Security, Medicare, and the protection of their local police and fire departments. Also, they'll be audited. But nevertheless: Folks can vote however they want.

What is at stake here for both McCain and Obama is a choice about creating a new path of economic prosperity for America's workers. By suppporting the Employee Free Choice Act, Obama recognizes that when workers are able to form or join a union, more people have the chance to earn better wages and benefits. Indeed, when more workers are in unions, the wages of workers who aren't in unions rise anyway. The Employee Free Choice Act is part of the solution to get our economy back on track, and John McCain doesn't want that to happen.

It's clear John McCain is more interested in protecting his CEO campaign contributors than he is in giving working families a chance to get ahead. McCain's new anti-worker rhetoric in his stump speech indicates his economic plans leave behind the middle class while enriching the already-rich.

It's disappointing - but not surprising - that McCain's not joining Barack Obama in supporting the Employee Free Choice Act to create a new economic path for working families.

Read More...

I noticed recently that CNN gets it wrong on unions and the Employee Free Choice Act.

I know, this is not really a surprise to most people readin this blog, but you never know, perhaps I'm reaching out to those who aren't really familiar with CNN and their anti-worker stances. So, let' me take a few minutes to Fact Check, CNN's Fact Check of McCain's October 13th speech:

In a speech Monday, October 13, in Virginia Beach, Virginia, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain took on Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama's stance on unions. "Senator Obama is measuring the drapes (in the White House), and planning with Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid to … take away your right to vote by secret ballot in labor elections," he said.

First, let's talk McSame and his rampant anti-unionism.

- He does not support Firefighter's right to collectively bargain
- He opposes IAFF's attempts at ensuring all firefighters have the right to join a union
- In 1996 He voted for a bill that would have repealed the section of the National Labor Relations Act that allows states to determine their own laws on union security agreements and replaced it with a federal mandate banning such agreements.
- In 2005, McCain tried to limit overtime for workers by radically overhauling the Fair Labor Standards Act whereby workers would be paid overtime for hours in excess of 80 in a two week period instead of hours in excess of 40 in a one week period.
- In 2005">McCain has blocked legislation (Fillibuster and voting to not end debate) on The Employee Free Choice Act (2007), Striker's Rights (to not be replaced by Scabs - multiple votes), He's voted for the elimination of Davis Bacon's prevailing wage rates,


Okay, got some of that out of the way, let's now talk about how wrong his statement is and then take a look at CNN's bizarro world coverage.

McCain notes in his statement that the Employee Free Choice Act will eliminate secret ballot elections. This is not true, employees can still request an election. But it will give equal time to unions to speak to workers including equal time to the pro-union workers on those jobs.


These comments always fail to note that "Secret Ballot Election" is not really an election in the sense that most Americans understand an election to be. In the US, our labor laws were written in the 30's and anti-unionism was very high and that fear is often represented in the manner in which those laws were written.

Take this op-ed in the Hill by Gordon Lafer, a political scientist at the University of Oregon and the author of Free and Fair? How Labor Law Fails U.S. Democratic Election Standards:

For instance, in elections for Congress or the president, it is illegal for a private corporation to tell its employees anything that favors one candidate or the other. But in workplace elections, it is standard practice for supervisors to hold repeated one-on-one conversations with the individuals they oversee. Here, the person who has the most direct control over hiring and firing, promotion, raises, hours and duties tells their subordinates in no uncertain terms why a union would be bad for them. The message is clear: If you ever want a raise, or a day off to take your kid to a doctor, you better not support the union.

Many of the tactics used to intimidate employees are legal. However, because federal labor law contains no possibility of punitive fines, prison or any other type of sanction, employers break the law at will. Last year, approximately 15,000 Americans were illegally fired, suspended or otherwise financially punished for trying to form a union in their workplace.

An election where one party controls the media, requires voters to attend its rallies, enforces a gag order on opponents and fires voters for backing the opposition is undemocratic and un-American. The Employee Free Choice Act would reform the current system to guarantee that Americans who want to form a union are able to do so in part by ending the charade that we call a Labor Board election by giving workers a second option: the choice to form a union by a majority sign-up process.

CNN is perpetuating a myth that somehow union elections are not only secret elections but also FAIR and they are neither. The message to workers is always clear and pounded into them day in and day out that joining a union will mean no sick days or possible firing or goodness knows what else.

But it's not actually the election that takes a long time. Most elections (about 92%) are actually completed within 60 days of the request. The issue is all of the appeals to the elections and all of the employer's ability to stack the deck in their favor, and with card check, WORKERS get a choice to do a card check by majority signature or to request an election, a fair election.

Tula Connell posted at Firedoglake last year about this and I wanted to take just a small excerpt from it:

But Big Money groups like the anti-worker and Orwellian-named Coalition for a Democratic Workplace and CUF, the Center for Union Facts (not), are waging a massive effort to defeat the bill—making these past few days critical for supporters of the bill to make our voices heard. CUF alone is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on full-page ads in The New York Times, The Washington Post and elsewhere, as well as on ads on CNN and Fox (natch) trashing the bill.

These groups' big lie is that the Employee Free Choice Act will take away the secret ballot election process. It would not. Instead, it would ensure workers have another option in addition to the ballot process—majority sign-up (card-check). The employee advocacy group American Rights at Work does a great job here in showing how a ballot election at the workplace is far from democratic—and so it can't be compared with the type of elections we had in this country before Bush.

CNN is wrong. Their Fact check uses the same old LIE from the right wing and makes it "truth." It's laziness to the extreme because there is enough information out there for them to see the difference, hell, if they'd just read the actual legislation they'd see that, instead they post this kind of crap:

Verdict: True. McCain accurately represents Obama's stance, although the candidates disagree on the merits of the plan. Organized labor backs Obama's position, while business groups and some non-union workers support McCain's.

Non-union workers support McCain? My parents are non-union workers and mom supports Obama and Dad, he's still undecided (I'm working on him). Given the chance, 60 million US workers would join a union. The problem is here that there is little chance because doing something in support of a union also means risking suspension, sitting through anti-union propaganda, or risking your family's livelihood.

Card Check is the right thing to do for American workers. We are the back bone of the country and it's about time that both businesses and also politicians understood that point. More importantly, it'd just be nice if CNN understood the difference between a Card Check system with optional FAIR elections and the current systems of intimidation, fear mongering and illegal activities on the part of employers trying to keep out unions through a "secreat ballot election".

I suppose it's too much to ask for that CNN figure out that "Secret Ballot" is really code for "NO UNIONS WANTED" and yeah, that includes the rhetoric of McCain, Mr. Anti-Union himself. But I'm not sure why they think that we aren't going to call them out on this shoddy work. I mean, come on, how long would it have really taken them to do their fucking job and get it right instead of throwing out more ridiculous Right-Wing talking points? This doesn't make you Fair and Balanced, it just makes you fox-light. Of course, perhaps that's what you're really going for, faux style news that always puts forward the Right Wing Talking Points.

CNN, I expect more from you.

But you know, I don't want to close on a sour "I expect more from CNN note" I want to end this with my favorite Union quote this year:

It’s time we had a President who didn’t choke saying the word “union.”

This is exactly what I want out of a President.

Read More...

And by Orange, I mean, Vincent Orange.

Same guy who said this:

"We shouldn't force people to have to join a union," Orange said. "This is not in the best interests of the city."

So, it should come as no surprise that this bastion of Worker Hate won a seat yesterday to the Democratic National Committee. Mr. Anti-Union himself, Vincent Orange, is now the National Committeeman representing the District of Columbia for the next 4 fucking years. And this with labor folks at the polls working on behalf of labor candidates.

Nice, huh?

But hey, don't take my word for it, or hell, even Vincent's, take a look at his campaign material



That's Vincent Orange and his poster in Chinatown at H street.

Take a closer look:
It's missing a BUG. Yep, a union-bug.

So the worker hating Vincent Orange will now represent the union city of Washington DC. But this is the kind of stuff you get when you vote for the same old names, which DCist pointed out prior to the election when they called out Anita Bonds and her ilk:

Bonds' group, Obama for Change, in a bit of purposeful irony, is actually the slate offering the least amount of change. She's running with colorful former D.C. Council member Vincent Orange and a handful of other longtime Ward activists (people like Don Dinan, Dave Donaldson and Jan Eichhorn) on their collective "extensive track record of accomplishments." This track record includes how the committee ended up in financial trouble a little under two years ago.

So, as I sit here and type up this post, I'm brought back to something Joe (Joe's UnionReview) and Richard (UnionReview) said to me...Who Fucking uses Non-Union Printshops for Democratic Lit? Who are these fucking people? (Okay, actually, I think it was just Joe).

pst, Joe, the answer is...Vincent Orange and apparently, also Anita Bonds, the chair of the DCDSC. The two go hand in hand. I'm so glad he's not our mayor, and I'm not a Fenty fan!! Orange makes Fenty look like a union activist and friend of workers. I really didn't think I'd write those words next to Fenty's name!

Next up for the DCDSC, officer elections AND election of ex-officio spots. Wonder how Bonds will shape up as a candidate for chair this time out. But even more importantly, I'm wondering how many unionist will be seated on this committee. You know as a counter balance to the Wingnut-d'jour, Vincent Orange.

Read More...

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that Rhee and Fenty are anti-union…

oday, she and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty appeared with NYC Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein, Newark Mayor Cory Booker, former Colorado Gov. Roy Romer and the Rev. Al Sharpton for panel discussions on education reform. The panel discussions were heavy on "special interest" bashing (i.e. the teachers' union, special education lawyers and so on), and the panelists mostly hailed each other for being tough, reform-minded mold breakers.

But Rhee woke up the room when she railed on the "media" for wrecking her collective bargaining agreement with the Washington Teachers' Union. She has offered the union a new merit pay contract that would allow teachers to opt into a plan that could pay them a lot more money if they relinquish their seniority rights. The contract has been extraordinarily controversial with some teachers supporting it, but others angrily denouncing the plan.

Panel moderator Jonathan Alter, a Newsweek columnist, asked Rhee where the negotiations stood.

"We have not rolled out a tenative agreement yet. We were very close to doing so and then the media got in our way a little bit. That caused us some problems," Rhee responded.

Alter looked surprised. "What do you mean by that?" he followed up.

"Well, I do think it's a signficant problem for us," Rhee said firmly. "The media reported incorrect information about the contract and what that did was just raise all these alarm bells among the rank and file who started to put a tremendous amount of pressure on the teachers' union president; when he was ready to roll it out, he took a step back. So it's been a hard road over the last few weeks."

I can’t seem to find any unions represented at this forum, despite the work that the President of the AFT had done to reform NY schools. Wonder if Randi Weingarten or any of the teachers’ unions were invited, at all. I’m thinking, they weren’t. I’d expect to see an anti-union event like this at the Republican convention, but certainly not at a DNC convention, and not attended by so many Democrats.

So, anyone there; can you tell me, were there any unions invited; did any show up for the panel; anyone in the audience? I’m dying to know.

Read More...

I open my mail this morning to find out that DCLabor finally pulled out of the working groups that had been set up to iron out labor and city issues. Mayor Fenty and his people have been, well (how do I put this?), less than forthcoming

LABOR UPDATES: Labor Pulls Out of DC Labor-Management Program: Labor told the DC City Council Friday it was pulling out of DC Labor-Management Partnership Programs. Stymied by the administration's unilateral decision-making, lack of information-sharing and continued refusal to meet with labor representatives for over a year, frustrated labor leaders testified Friday that they were pulling out of the previously successful partnerships. "You cannot have a partnership without a partner," Metro Council President and Labor-Management Programs Co-chair Jos Williams told DC City Council members at the hearing. Labor leaders - hoping to re-invigorate the program - had voiced their concerns about the program at a Council hearing in February but reported Friday that no progress had been made (Labor-Management Partnerships Stalled 2/14/08 UC). "The work of the DC Partnership has been acclaimed at all levels of government and labor," and has received national recognition said AFSCME Council 20's Al Bilik (right of Williams in photo). "It is a shame, a crime to see top officials renege on their commitment." AFGE Council 211 President Eric Bunn (pictured far right) also questioned the City's commitment to continue funding the program - which over its ten years has resulted in 54 department partnerships in 27 different agencies - pointing out that agencies were being given the opportunity to opt out of funding the program in the 2009 budget. "Clearly the city had demonstrated they don't want to partner," Bunn said.

In fact, the Fenty administration has been angry and dismissive toward DC Labor for a rather long time, City Paper covered the story last year.

In the audience was a group of local labor leaders, including several big shots from unions representing D.C. government employees. After Fenty finished his speech, Dwight R. Bowman, who heads up the local district of the American Federation of Government Employees, walked up to Fenty to shake his hand and exchange pleasantries.

“Unfortunately, the conversation never got to that,” Bowman says.

It’s probably wrong to call it a conversation. Says one eyewitness, “In the blink of an eye, Adrian went ballistic.…He got red; he got aggressive; he got right in Dwight’s face.” The witness called the outburst “scary.”

What set Hizzoner off? Well, the union guys apparently hit one of his soft spots: Bowman apparently implied a little too strongly that Fenty was snubbing Big Labor.

Bowman had wanted to express his union’s support for a proposal the mayor had floated to bring the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority back under city control. But before he got into that, Bowman thought he needed to acknowledge that mayoral relations had been rocky.

Wrong move: Fenty demanded an example of said rockiness. “You don’t think everything is all right?” he asked Bowman, before pressing him for examples.

Bowman mentioned a number of things to Fenty: During the campaign, Bowman says Fenty was invited to a candidate forum that the AFGE had sponsored. The union folks got no advance notice that the candidate was coming. When he did come, he was late. And then he left early, choosing to schmooze outside the debate rather than take questions from the podium. Bowman also mentioned that Fenty had no-showed on an invitation to address the AFGE’s annual legislative conference.

But the touchiest issue several witnesses say was when Bowman brought up the subject of a meeting and how difficult it had been to schedule one.

“Gimme an example of where I haven’t been able to meet with you,” Fenty reportedly demanded.

“I don’t understand why he stepped up close to me and why he was so agitated,” Bowman says. “I’m a pretty straightforward guy. When he asked me a question, I gave him an answer.”

Rumors of Fenty’s short temper with his own employees are well-circulated; it’s just another part of the mythology of a hard-driving, constituents-first boss who demands the utmost from his staffers. In public, however, the Fenty style has always been to exude cool competence.

Another cornerstone of the Fenty image: His willingness to show up at any gathering or meet any group that he can make time for. The idea that Fenty would stand up a group of any size doesn’t jibe with that.

Fenty declined to get into the details of the encounter, but he did not deny that the exchange had been heated. “[Bowman] and I agree we’re going to have a meeting,” he says. That meeting, however, has not been scheduled.

There’s no shortage of reasons for there to be tension between Fenty and the labor community. During the mayoral election campaign, most unions representing government employees—including AFGE—supported former D.C. Council Chairman Linda Cropp. After taking office, Fenty appointed to the school board Ted Trabue, head of the D.C. Economic Empowerment Coalition and the Empower D.C. political action committee—groups with ties to anti-union construction concerns. Since then, there have been occasional flare-ups—for instance, when Fenty’s general counsel, Peter Nickles, referred to the city’s Department of Disability Services as a “dumping ground” for castoffs from other government agencies in a May Legal Times article.

Plus, to date, Fenty hasn’t shown a lot of regard for the sanctity of public employment. Late last week, Fenty and schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee finalized their plan to “right-size” the long-demonized D.C. Public School central-office bureaucracy. The pink slips will be going to nonunion employees, but labor types don’t see the plan boding well for the upcoming contract negotiations with the Washington Teachers’ Union.

Fenty isn't the kind of mayor I expected. He isn't anything like the guy who stood in my living room to meet my neighbors and discuss issues important to Ward 8. I certainly wouldn't have supported any candidate that's shown himself to be so anti-worker as this mayor has. I suppose I can chalk this one up to experience and hope that when he's up for re-election, we can find a suitable replacement. Right now, I have no hope that he'll ever understand or do what's necessary to work with labor. And that, is a very sad place to be.

Read More...