Political Bargaining: When Should Outsde Groups Draw Lines In the Sand?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 11:00:24 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via FDL, in an article about AFSCME President Gerald McEntee's stalwart stance on the public option, I was struck by this comment from a union official:

Harold Schaitberger of the International Association of Firefighters - questioned the language [about opposing a crappy health care reform bill.] “This is very premature to be putting markers down,” Schaitberger said. “There are so many steps left. There are two Senate bills to be merged. We’re going to get a lot further down this road by being prospective.”

Is Schaitberger right? I think he could not be more wrong. The time to stake out a firm position is early, not late. Why? Because if you wait, deals will be made without your concerns being addressed. To me, it is the same issue with when to criticize Obama. A lot of people say wait until he does what he is considering doing what you oppose. I say tell him you will oppose him if he does something you oppose. Then maybe he won't do it. Seems pretty simple to me. What am I missing?

Speaking for me only

< Snarlin Arlen: "I'm Going To Fight for The Public Option" | Sunday Afternoon Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Political Bargaining: When Should Outsde Groups Draw Lines In the Sand? | 24 comments (24 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

You're missing nothing (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 11:20:02 AM EST

THe time to consider being "reasonable" is only at the very end of the process when you risk losing everything. And sometimes that's better than being "reasonable" about something truly crappy.

Haven't ANY of these people ever played poker? Do they approach buying a car the same way?

There's more going on here in most cases, I think, more things perceived to be at the bargaining table that aren't immediately apparent on the surface-- access to power, funding, other legislative priorities down the road, etc. IOW, they fear being cut out of other goodies if they're hard-nosed on this or any other single issue.

Personality issues aside, what is the Firefighters Union, and other wimpy unions, afraid they will lose that McEntee and other stalwarts on the PO aren't?

That the labor unions in general have been so weakened and coopted that they're afraid to be "prospective" is frankly just horrifying.

At this pooint, who's vulnerable (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by oldpro on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 01:38:24 PM EST

to pressure...from unions or from anyone else? Not the White House who will not demand, or even fight for, a public option.

Chris Dodd. Harry Reid. Other incumbents who are in trouble at home and whose race may be close or even won with union help...lost without it.

I think Harry Reid is the best (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by MO Blue on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 01:51:38 PM EST

person for the unions to pressure. He definitely needs union support in 2010 and he is the one holding the "hot potato" on whether or not the public option is included in the Senate combined bill. Schumer and Rockefeller laid the groundwork for this by publicly stating that Reid is the one who will decide whether or not it is in the mark.

ROCKEFELLER: Harry Reid can put into that mark whatever he wants. FDL

Unions need to jump on this bandwagon and make it clear that they will hold him responsible for what is in the mark.


: Absolutely right. (none / 0) (#20)
by jen on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 04:11:01 PM EST

Win Clark Co. by enough and the rest of the State doesn't matter.

The White House still doesn't have (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by oculus on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 02:53:10 PM EST

a line in the sand. Wonder what the plan for cost containment is w/o public option?

Obama's plan for cost containment (none / 0) (#16)
by MO Blue on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 03:14:35 PM EST

He is going to ask the insurance industry to please, pretty please play nice. Oh and BTW, be sure to keep those campaign contributions rolling into Democratic coffers.


Not a great legacy. (none / 0) (#17)
by oculus on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 03:20:01 PM EST

Not much help for people who (none / 0) (#18)
by MO Blue on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 03:21:00 PM EST

need affordable health CARE either.


: It's one thing, two actually, to wage (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by oculus on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 03:25:28 PM EST

military action in two ME countries, and to pay off finanical giants but not regulate them. But health care costs hit the common person hard. Big mistake.

Let's cut right to the looming failure (none / 0) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 04:26:00 PM EST

we could get with no line in the sand :)


Lines: Bright and Early wins the day (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Ellie on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 05:16:35 PM EST

If you're showing up for hardball. Anything less is counting on the last hit of the day going your way in the 13th inning (and half-way to losing).

Branch Rickey: "Luck is the Residue of Design"

As a parent (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 08:31:11 PM EST

I try to let my kids know what my expectations of them is and what the consequences may be for bad decisions. Same thing when I was a manager.
Trying and failing is OK but there is a price for not even trying, or for lying and obfuscating.

IMO early expectations is always best.

love this (none / 0) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 11:13:42 AM EST

And he blew off a plea from White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and published an open letter promising to "oppose" legislation that contained the tax - published over the objections, several labor officials said, of other union presidents whose names appeared on the letter.
"We have had just about enough of his gratuitous slaps," said a senior White House official Friday,

hmmm
which white house official could that possibly be?

: Activists need to continue to (none / 0) (#3)
by MO Blue on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 11:25:17 AM EST

blow off pleas from White House unless concrete positive action is taken on their objectives.
Long past time to stand up and support their objectives and not surrender to the needs of politicians or parties to pretend that they are doing something when they are not.

IIRC the SEIU is very active in Nevada (none / 0) (#4)
by MO Blue on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 11:34:40 AM EST

politics. It is a shame that they are not telling Sen. Reid that they will stay home in 2010 unless legislation contains a public option and the tax on insurance plans is eliminated. Instead their president, Andrew Stern, has aligned himself closely with the White House.

To give Stern some credit (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 11:45:20 AM EST

He did conjure up the Federalist Option which I think is the winning compromise.


: Carrots and sticks? (none / 0) (#6)
by MO Blue on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 11:58:46 AM EST

No reason IMO he can't offer suggestions and still make it clear to Reid that if he wants support in 2010, SEIU expects support in return.

What is the SEIU's line in the sand though? (none / 0) (#12)
by oculus on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 01:45:15 PM EST

Most government employees have good health care coverage compared to others. Is SEIU's bottom line: no tax on employer-provided insurance benefits?


: They also represent people like janitors and (none / 0) (#14)
by MO Blue on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 02:05:50 PM EST

cleaning personnel.
From what I can gather, they have no line in the stand and are in the "anything is better than nothing" camp.

A top-ranking SEIU official says that the powerful union could support a health care bill that doesn't include a public option -- a striking contrast to the more hard-line stance on the issue taken by the new president of the AFL-CIO.
...
But pressed as to what Service Employees International Union will do if -- as some suggest is inevitable -- a public option is not included in the final version of the legislation, Burger said even getting an imperfect bill is preferable to passing nothing at all. And, she said, this year's efforts may be just a first step. link

Maybe this is how these things... (none / 0) (#7)
by EL seattle on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 12:05:47 PM EST

... actually become 11th-dimension chess. When more than a few "particular interest groups" make it clear where they will want individual lines to be eventually drawn in the sand (or want to have control over the placement of those marks), I think that the beach will get really cluttered really fast.

He's completely wrong (none / 0) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 12:54:29 PM EST

It is okay to dream when we goal set. It is not okay to dream on the field when we are actually attaining the set goal!

: The White House dreamed a dream (none / 0) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 12:57:30 PM EST

about the insurance industry working with them too as long as they kept it all secret. Feck....I'm done dreaming! I read that the banking industry now is fighting them tooth and nail against being regulated from driving the globe into depression. Did I mention that I'm done dreaming?

He's wrong. The earlier the better (none / 0) (#10)
by oldpro on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 01:05:32 PM EST

in most situations, negotiations and in general. The bottom line is the line in the sand and the sooner others know what it is, the sooner you can get on to other things...or walk away. Or fight on another front to change the other parties' position with political pressure, advertising, etc.

Well (none / 0) (#22)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 04:30:43 PM EST

at this point it's beyond obvious that Obama and many of these groups have very little understanding or ability to bargain. Can we get Obama to step down and put BTD in his place? At least BTD has issue based convictions and understands bargaining which is more than Obama.