Congressmen Aren’t Looking for the Union Label in County

We all know (gulp) of marriages that seem to defy logical explanation. How did those two ever hook up? The parties didn’t know each other that long, shared no common historic interests and, if truth be told, probably never really trusted each other’s intentions.

But even those modest obstacles might be surmountable if it weren’t for the No. 1 impediment to long-running happy marriages: nosy relatives.

Oh, the mischief they can cause. Wouldn’t you just love to tell these busybodies to mind their own business?

That’s why it’s so irritating to me, a guy with a heart as big as all outdoors and the gullibility to match, to see Orange County’s five Republican congressmen throw cold water on the 17-month-old marriage between the Board of Supervisors and organized labor.

Hey, they’re just getting to know each other!

The congressmen want the board (also made up of five Republicans) to scrap its commitment to guarantee union work on all big county projects through 2005.

Under normal circumstances, you’d think the family-values, honor-your-commitments crowd would be the first to encourage people to stay the course. They would never renege on a contract.

But this is a marriage between a politically conservative board and organized labor--sort of like a Hatfield marrying a McCoy--and the board’s congressional relatives no doubt objected to it from the get-go. With organized labor a perennial pillar of Democratic politics, you can understand their antipathy.

Obviously, the congressmen haven’t looked as deeply into labor’s eyes as have the supervisors.

So what is it the board saw when it cozied up to union leaders?

The cynical view, of course, was that it wasn’t love at all.

Rather, in guaranteeing union work on big projects, the board was buying union support for any and all votes on the El Toro airport project last January, at a time when the anti-airport Measure F was heading to the ballot.

A three-member board majority badly wanted the airport and, what a surprise, the vote on the union-friendly agreement was 3-0, with airport supporters casting the votes. Anti-airport supervisors Todd Spitzer and Thomas Wilson abstained.

What the union wanted was even more obvious: lots of work in the years ahead.

Both sides saw something they liked in the other. Isn’t that how marriages are made?

A quid pro quo?

Isn’t that rather obvious, asks a union leader familiar with the negotiations but who asked not to be identified. However, he’s quick to point out, politics demands such denials.

The first “date” the unions had with the county’s leadership wasn’t even with government officials, the labor leader says. The overtures came in the early 1990s from airport backers George Argyros and Bruce Nestande, two pillars of Republican politics and the Orange County business community.

They wanted union backing for the airport (possibly to impress the Clinton administration) and asked Orange County labor leaders what it would take to get it, the labor leader says.

That led to the courtship that culminated in the 2000 agreement with the board, he says.

The nuptials announced 17 months ago shocked some in the conservative family.

“If you’ve noticed, organized labor is constantly being derided in this county,” the labor man says. “This has got to be among the most labor-unfriendly places in the nation. This [agreement with the county] is just such a cherry on top. It’s so cool.”

So yeah, you can understand why many conservatives wanted to disown a board that suddenly saw beauty in the labor movement.

But labor also tried harder to dress itself up, the union man says. It argued that union work meant channeling money to working families in Orange County. Subtly or not, labor leaders made the point that nonunion labor might mean illegal residents--some or many of whom might then get cheated by unscrupulous contractors.

This time, the magic worked.

Ain’t love grand?

And, let me add this solemn note: “What politics hath joined, let no congressman rent asunder.”

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821 or by writing to him at The Times’ Orange County edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or by e-mail to dana.parsons@latimes.com.