An Attack on the Left
Submitted by Jerimee on Thu, 04/08/2010 - 4:22pm
North Carolinians have been warning out of state folks for months that Cal Cunningham isn’t the progressive savior his DC-run campaign would claim. Never has that been more obvious than today when he flip-flopped on EFCA.
AP - http://www.wlos.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.nc/3e9e54c7-www.wlos.com.shtml
Cal Cunningham said in an interview with The Associated Press that he supports elections as the sole way for there to be unions created, but opposed so-called "card check" organizing. He clarified in a later interview that he would be open to hearing arguments about "card check" but felt it could not pass. The labor-backed idea would allow workers to form a union by signing cards instead of by secret ballot.
Another story on Cunnigham's betrayal of progressive principles.
Both of Cunningham’s opponents, attorney Ken Lewis and Secretary of State Elaine Marshall, support EFCA. Cunningham was in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act a few weeks ago when he claimed support during a live chat at Daily Kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2010/3/26/11460/5373/14#c14
Why has Cunningham now joined Senator Richard Burr in attacking EFCA? Cunningham staff have been working night and day to get the support of local unions including a recent endorsement by the Teamsters. Now that Cunningham has got their endorsement – shock! – he is switching positions most likely to fundraise off (and please) the corporate DLC-types that control his campaign.
This isn’t much of a surprise since Cunningham is a corporate lawyer that works for a union-busting firm. See for yourself here.
Without EFCA, Labor will not survive. Without Labor, the Democratic party will not survive as even a slow incremental instrument of change. An attack on EFCA is an attack on the Left.
Cal Cunningham, like so many DSCC endorsed candidates, has sold out working class families for a quick buck. Do not support him. Do not help him.
- Jerimee's blog
- 2197 reads
very dissapointing
I would hope that he misspoke in that interview with the AP or Mr. Cunningham was just simply not up to par on the details of the Employee Free Choice Act.
I mean, heck, even Kay Hagan supports EFCA.
EFCA is not intuitive
Employee free choice-- but the union busting line is that they support secret ballots. For most people a secret ballot sounds like the best thing. But a union organizer explained that the Owners prefer a secret ballot which has to take place on the company property-- where workers are not free to discuss the ballot-- and there can be pressure applied to vote the way the boss says.
Unions prefer a card check, where the ballot/card is completed at home.
The companies fear that the union organizers can pressure the workers to cast their card/ballot while they are intimidated in their homes.
Who do you believe?
I believe that the card check offers more privacy for the voting. Having a vote at the office is not secret!
So this EFCA is important.
I hope Cal Cunningham can explain this apparent change of opinion and that the Teamsters can persuade him that it is important.
TurnNCBlue
One step over the line
Jerimee, I share your disappointment in Cal for this reversal in a previously clearly stated position, and it is one reason why I am happy I have supported Elaine from the getgo in this campaign. You know where she stands, and if she changes her mind, she'll come out and explain exactly why.
But you shouldn't have unleashed the "corporate lawyer from a union busting law firm" crap. There are a lot of attorneys in the Democratic Party, and one of the central principles of our legal system is that attorneys are not their clients. All clients are entitled to representation.
I am a corporate lawyer, and my firm has represented its share of management clients. I don't think that hurts my bona fides as a Democrat one bit.
Now, if you want to join me in taking Cal to the woodshed for waffling, please do. But keep your broadbrush attacks on entire professions to yourself.
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire
not an attack on lawyers
I have deep respect for lawyers, and believe that everyone deserves the right to a strident defense. In particular I recognize that trial lawyers are a vital part of the Democratic party. The Left depends upon the legal community for support, just as it depends upon Labor.
I certainly would not deny legal representation even to polluters, banksters, and those who abuse their workers.
That said, given the choice between voting for a trial lawyer who represents individuals (typically against corporate behemoths), or a public interest lawyer who advocates for his or her community, or a lawyer who chooses to represent wealthy, powerful, and largely unaccountable, corporations - well I think this is something that the public ought to know.
Helped City of Augusta Fight Against the Enforcement of the Clean Water Act
http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/en/Experience/2002/M01/I5/1015.aspx
Help Employers Cut Retirement Benefits
http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/en/What%20We%20Do/Service%20Areas/Busi...
Escape Accountability for Worker Injury
http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/en/Experience/2002/M01/I6/1146.aspx
Avoid Paying Workers Overtime
http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/en/Experience/2009/M01/I7/1157.aspx
Helped Lockheed Martin Avoid Accountability for Alleged Racial Discrimination
http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/en/Experience/2008/M06/I6/2566.aspx
Helps Pharma Fight off Lawsuits related to Addiction Issues
http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/en/Experience/2006/M06/I9/3669.aspx
Helps Defense Contractor Continue to Discrimination Against those with Disabilities
http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/en/Experience/2008/M10/I3/5273.aspx
Helped Entertainment Corporation Defeat a Lawsuit brought by Civil Rights Icon Rosa Parks
http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/en/Experience/2009/M05/I0/950.aspx
And, of course, Attack Workers Attempting to Form a Union
http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/en/What%20We%20Do/Service%20Areas/Labo...
This is just a partial list - the "work" of Kilpatrick Stockton goes on and on and on. They are quite proud of their success at keeping workers, consumers, and ordinary citizens in their place.
Like I said, I'm not saying every lawsuit brought against a company has merit, or that corporations don't deserve to be represented. My point is that Cunningham had a choice between working to advance corporate power, or to curtail it, and he choose to serve the wealthy and overly entitled.
- - - - -
http://twitter.com/Jerimee
it absolutely is
and it's a personal insult, because you could probably go find a list of cases you disagree with that either of my firms have participated in and, I suppose, you would choose to hold that against me personally.
You and I are on the same side in this primary. But I just wanted to let you know that I think this is not an entirely fair attack.
Since Ken and Elaine are both attorneys, I would venture to say none of the candidates would support the position that an attorney is responsible for the political and business choices of the clients of oher attorneys in their firm.
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire
maybe I don't understand?
Do you not get a choice in who you work for?
This isn't like holding a Wal-Mart cashier responsible for Wal-Mart's malfeasance - lawyers have every opportunity to decide what type of law they would like to practice.
This also isn't like taking on a job as a public defender. Working class people accused of crimes are in a much more disadvantaged position than Fortune 500 companies (despite the fact that white collar crime causes more loss of life than murder.)
You can't claim to be a pacifist and take a job with Blackwater. You can't claim to be an environmentalist and then take a job with a firm whose main business is helping corporations evade environmental law. Your career isn't an accident; you make choices about what you want to support.
While I certainly don't hold you responsible for every alleged crime of every corporation your firm represents, I suspect that 99% people who work for corporate law firms are primarily motivated by material security, and prioritize that ahead of other concerns. This is every person's choice to make and the values question is primarily personal. I believe that changes, however, when seeking public office.
Cal Cunning has trumped up large certain aspects of his legal career; he should not try to escape accountability from other, less altruistically motivated decisions he has made.
While I'll understand if you continue to take offense, I sincerely don't mean you any. I don't begrudge you your work, and I know you to be deeply committed to a set of values I hold dear. I continue to appreciate your comments here and elsewhere.
- - - - -
http://twitter.com/Jerimee
Jeremy i like you buddy, but
Jeremy i like you buddy, but there's a lot you maybe don't understand
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire
agreed
I have no doubt
- - - - -
http://twitter.com/Jerimee
Jeremy just does not understand Corporate Greed like Me?
Jeremy i like you buddy, but there's a lot you maybe don't understand* Dr Frank Lives
Like Corporate Greed old buddy corporate lawyer?