As Chairman of the Nassau County Legislature's committee on Economic Development and Labor, I take great pride in the
work I have done on behalf of Long Island's working families. My mother was a housekeeper and then nurse's aide at New Island Hospital and a member of the healthcare workers union, 1199 SEIU. My brother is a member of 1199 and a nurse's aid at New Island to this day. My father died when my sister and I were very young, and my family was able to make ends meet because of my mother's union benefits and the Social Security safety net.
I have never forgotten the support my family received from my mother's union, and I have worked tirelessly to support working families during my tenure as an elected official. I co-sponsored Nassau County's Living Wage law and most recently authored legislation implementing a
Bill of Rights for Nassau's domestic and household workers. Prior to being elected I was on the board of the Nassau County Industrial Development Agency (I.D.A.) where we were the first I.D.A. in the state to require prevailing wage and apprenticeship programs. As a result of my efforts, the Long Island Federation of Labor has recommended me for endorsement by the AFL-CIO as a candidate for the House of Representatives.
Since I began my campaign, I've been confronted with a slew of misconceptions about Peter King. Among the worst of these is the perception of Peter King as being "labor-friendly."
Peter King being cast as a labor-friendly Republican is perhaps the most glaring example of the record not matching the rhetoric we see his campaign put forward. And King's record on labor is very telling:
40%, 27%, 27%, 50%, 20%.
No, those aren't Bush approval ratings. They are Peter King's ratings from the AFL-CIO over the past five years. 40%, 27%, 27%, 50% and 20% most recently in 2005: These numbers represent the percentage of King's votes that the AFL-CIO considers supportive to America's working families. That's right; Peter King's vote supported working families only twenty percent of the time in 2005!
But wait, it gets worse. Let's take a look at the 2005 rating for the other members of Long Island's congressional delegation:
Tim Bishop - 93%
Steve Israel - 87%
Carolyn McCarthy - 93%
Gary Ackerman - 93%
PETER KING - 20%
Why is his record so bad? Why were his colleagues rated 67 to 73 percent better on labor issues. Was it just an off year for King? No. Let's examine the lifetime ratings of the same five Representatives:
Tim Bishop - 98%
Steve Israel - 82%
Carolyn McCarthy - 84%
Gary Ackerman - 96%
PETER KING - 35%
Sorry Peter, but the numbers don't lie.
In 2005 alone, King supported a sweetheart deal with Wal-Mart that would give them unprecedented 15 days notice before the Labor Department could conduct any child labor or wage and hour investigations. He voted to exempt health plans from state consumer protection rules and voted to weaken OSHA's ability to enforce worker safety laws.
King voted for HR 4297, which authorized $56 billion in tax cuts for households earning more than $1 million per year. The average annual savings for these households was nearly $51,000, more than many average families earn in a year. He gives tax cuts to the rich, but has voted multiple times against raising the minimum wage. Under current law, a full-time worker earning minimum wage in the United States makes $10,700 a year, almost $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. Peter King doesn't think America deserves a raise.
Perhaps most damning is King's steadfast support for President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. This misguided stance places him at odds with labor unions who are strictly opposed to privatization. And in typical Peter King fashion, when asked to defend his stance, he referred to a coalition of Long Island labor unions "wacko malcontents" and "partisan hit men" who "have no regard for senior citizens or for their country."
Peter King, labor-friendly? I think not.
Dave Mejias
DaveforAmerica.com
Please support my campaign through ActBlue!