Right to Work for Less – This week

Tom Fahey’s column this week is full of interesting items to chew on and discuss.
Dean takes on the new revelations on the  Ingbretson/O’Brien star kangaroo court.

On the topic of this week’s right to work vote:

Democrats and unions are fighting hard to keep people in line to back the veto. Republicans and conservatives are trying to pull enough votes over to their side. By O’Brien’s reckoning, he needs to persuade about 15 people to reach the two-thirds majority it would take to override the veto.

Those Republicans who won’t come along are being asked to “take a walk” when the vote is taken. The more lawmakers who wander away during the vote, the fewer votes O’Brien needs to get to two-thirds.

In other words, the O’Brien junta is (instructing..oops)  asking those GOP caucus members who won’t toe the line to take a walk, rather than represent the voters they were elected to represent.

Fahey goes on to mention our own Jennifer Daler’s election, and points out that she’ll be sworn in in time to vote – meaning O’Brien has to (make more threats..oops)  find more votes.

Fahey spoke to some Nashua reps on the topic of the newly elected Rep. Daler:

Sen. Jim Luther and Sen. Gary Lambert, both of Nashua, said they felt voters were sending a message to throttle back on extraneous issues and focus on taxes and the economy.

“We’ve had a lot of discussion about it,” Luther said. “You’ve got to have the sense that something is going on out there. And right in Bill O’Brien’s back yard? That’s an issue.”

Dean’s been asking when the House Republicans would realize they have an O’Brien problem. It sounds as if they’re starting to.  

, , ,

13 Responses to Right to Work for Less – This week

  1. Alexandra the Great May 22, 2011 at 8:35 pm #

    The only thugs are O’Brien and his Leadership Team in Concord.  Their contempt and complete disrespect for the middle class, public employees, and the most vulnerable in this state is astounding.  

    If I were a GOPer that has been in the House I would be rethinking this legislation and this Leadership Team.

    Here is what the vote on Right to Work for Less was in 2006, last time the Republicans were in control of the legislature:

    3/22/06 HB 1496: establishing a right to work act which provides for freedom of choice on whether to join a labor union. COMMITTEE REPORT: ITL
    255 YEA
    85   NAY

    What has changed in the past 5 years?  Why have Republicans in out state become so RADICAL and EXTREME?

    Right to Work for Less is not the the NH way and has not been like that in the past.

    • susanthe May 22, 2011 at 8:47 pm #

      because unions donate to Democratic candidates. That’s all.  

    • dtturner24 May 22, 2011 at 9:04 pm #

      While going through the votes of HB1496 I ran across this little tidbit:
      03/22/2006 Vote 148
      HB1496: establishing a right to work act which provides for freedom of choice on whether to join a labor union. COMMITTEE REPORT: ITL
      Yea 255/Nay 85

      Bettencourt,David  Republican  Rockingham/04  Yea

      HUH?? Is this the same jerk we currently have in this seat?

      • Alexandra the Great May 22, 2011 at 9:25 pm #
  2. TimothyHorrigan May 22, 2011 at 8:55 pm #

    The House voted this year on a House Resolution which covered the same ground as the current “Johnson petition.”  HR 7, “a resolution directing the house judiciary committee to investigate whether grounds exist to impeach marital master Phillip Cross and/or any justice of the New Hampshire superior court” has passed 246-105.  So the recent Johnson hearing in the Redress Committee was duplicative and unnecessary: the House Judiciary Committee has already been instructed to hold hearings.

    HR 7 passed on a largely party line vote.  2 Democrats, Ken Gidge & John Gimas, crossed over to vote for it, and 20 Republicans crossed over the other way.  2 of those Republicans, for whatever it’s worth, were Ken Weyler & Neal Kurk. 3 Republicans,  Paul Brown, Laura Gandia and Amy Perkins each declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.  (Amy Perkins’ husband did vote and voted for it.)

  3. Vis Unita Fortior May 22, 2011 at 11:29 pm #

    From a good book I have been reading lately, a conversation between 1920’s British aristocrats:

    ‘…I pay him two pounds a week and give him a house.’

    ‘Pay him! What do you think you pay for, with two pounds a week and a house?’

    ‘His services.’

    ‘Bah! I would tell you to keep your two pounds a week and your house.’

    ‘Probably he would like to: but can’t afford the luxury!’

    ‘You, and RULE!’ she said. ‘You don’t rule, don’t flatter yourself. You have only got more than your share of the money, and make people work for you for two pounds a week, or threaten them with starvation. Rule! What do you give forth of rule? Why, you’re dried up! You only bully with your money…’

    (followed by somewhat racist 1920’s commentary, full original text here)

  4. Dean Barker May 23, 2011 at 5:24 am #

    has an interesting take on the various hearsay flying about:

    Among the stories being circulated is that the more fervent radical republicans are threatening to have any member evicted from their caucus if they don’t support and vote the republican leadership position.


  5. susanthe May 23, 2011 at 5:37 am #

    also has some trenchant observations

    What is happening now is state reps are being, as close as I can figure bribed and threatened all in the same day. I have been told that the speaker is promising money for your campaign if you stick with him and vote for RTW by voting against the Governors Veto. Then I hear that the majority leader is calling state reps and threatening them to vote with leadership to override the governor’s veto.

    Threats and bribes. It’s clear to me who the REAL thugs in this equation are.  

  6. Dean Barker May 24, 2011 at 4:09 am #

    from 1985, by Nackey Loeb.

    In part:

    “Those who want the “right to work” bill in New Hampshire are, we suspect, hypocritical in claiming to defend the rights of the common man. They seem more interested in punishment for political reasons or in putting working men and women in their “place.”  They show little interest in preserving New Hampshire’s healthy business and industry climate for the welfare of all.

    It works. Why change it?”


    This deserves to be seen again by everyone in NH, 26 years later.

    • elwood May 24, 2011 at 5:52 am #

      and the Loebs had a special relationship with Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters, if I remember the Kevin Cash book.

  7. susanthe May 24, 2011 at 8:17 am #

    in the Telegraph

    Cornerstone Action N.H. Executive Director Kevin Smith revealed on Thursday that O’Brien was “just a few votes shy” of reaching the veto override benchmark.

    • Dean Barker May 24, 2011 at 2:28 pm #

      That translates to:

      * maybe we don’t have the votes at all.

      * if we say we are just a couple shy, it’ll put pressure on those we can’t seem to bribe with campaign cash or threaten with redistricting out of existence.

      But if in the scenario they are a couple shy, then: how awesome was Jennifer Daler’s win?

    • Dean Barker May 24, 2011 at 2:44 pm #

      OMG that “column” is practicaly NHGOP communications.

      Vetoes are “dismissive” when it’s for RTWfL.

      Apparently it’s all the unions’ fault Jennifer won, even though turnout was high for both sides. Okay!

      The comments section is hilarious.

Site maintenance and hosting by Hoeferweb