Which candidate will help workers…
As expected, the nation’s unions are lining up behind their favorite candidates.
Last week, the Service Employees International Union, representing nearly 2 million workers, threw their support behind Obama.
“This is about more than one election. It’s about building for the next generation of America,” said SEIU President Andy Stern. “Barack Obama is creating the broadest and deepest coalition of voters we’ve ever seen.”
The Teamsters have yet to endorse any candidate, but AFSCME chose Clinton; the Food and Commercial Workers chose Obama; the American Federation of Teachers and Machinists chose Clinton; Unite Here and the Plumbers and Pipefitters chose Obama: and the Letter Carriers and Amalgamated Transit chose Clinton. (All this according the the Wall Street Journal.)
Now, many of you may have thought union support would be a no brainer for Hillary. Well, there was one little thing in her husband’s past that is coming back to haunt her–NAFTA. You remember NAFTA right? The North American Free Trade Agreement. Many in labor saw Bill Clinton’s support of NAFTA as a slap in the face of U.S. workers. Lots of jobs did indeed go South of the Border, and manufacturing jobs continue to disappear in this country.
Obama made a shrewd move on Wednesday, choosing to pander to a crowd of auto workers.
This from the Detroit News:
JANESVILLE, Wis . — Calling the current economic downturn “a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington,” Sen. Barack Obama pledged Wednesday before an audience of General Motors workers here to restore economic balance to a nation that has forgotten the middle class.
In a speech heavy on policy specifics, Obama spoke in a makeshift auditorium just above the assembly line floor where more than 2,000 workers build GM’s largest sport utility vehicles — vehicles Obama has criticized in the past as signs of a domestic auto industry unwilling to adjust to a new, environmentally conscious era.
Hillary is doing what she can as well to pander to the rank and file.
This from the Wall Street Journal:
Mrs. Clinton described herself as the “candidate of, from and for the middle class of America” to roundtable of voters in Cincinnati.
“It is wrong that an investment money manager in Wall Street making $50 million a year gets a lower tax rate than a teacher, a nurse, a truck driver, and autoworker making $50,000 a year.”
It might be too late for autoworkers. Their numbers are shrinking more and more every day.
I chose the word “pander” to refer to what these two candidates are doing because at this point it’s just that, pandering. Many workers are at their weakest point as far as job stability and negotiating power in the workplace today. And these candidates know the right thing to say to them. But the proof will come after one of these candidates, or McCain, are in office.
Hopefully, these labor groups that are so vocal now about getting their support behind these candidates will keep the fire burning when the next president doesn’t live up to his or her election promises.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I think it’s interesting that unions have been losing some of their clout over the years, and yet candidates continue to try and woo unions to their “side.” If unions really want to remain as an important voice, they’ve got to do a better job of being included at the table during a president’s term, and members have got to get involved and stay involved…and not just when the candidate needs them at the polling booth.
Anita Bruzzese
www.45things.com
February 20th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I’m starting to wonder why unions get as much attention as they do. When the pundits were reviewing the numbers of people represented by unions, I was shocked to learn that union members are a smaller voting block than self-professed conservative evangelicals. Are unions even relevant to current politics? Sure the different unions and locals can give endorsements, but if they represent a relatively small group, they’re just renaming different pieces of the same pie.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:55 am
Being a very disappointed SEIU member, I must address this with an avantgarde passion. Labor unions were essential in the development of standards as far as working conditions and working standards. Todays working environment owes every aspect to labor unions. I am a very conservative Republican. Often I hear other alleged Republicans make statements suchas ‘People in unions cannot make a decision by themselves so they need someone else to speak for them’. That is like saying we vote for a President because we cannot speak for ourselves. In my state, Pennsylvania, our constitution has stated for over 100 years we are a work at will state. An employer may hire you for any reason and an employer may terminate you for any reason or no reason. As basic as that sounds, it is true. If you have a labor contract or a personal services contract, then it is not legal to be terminated for no reason. There is a requirement of due process that is simply not present without such a contract. The state labor laws as such do create a very good environment for alot of businesses, the vast majority in our state have no labor unions. Not unlike any other collection of individuals, organized labor is one such collection. Without the aspect of organization, you have a cacaphony of meaningless conjecture, sort of like my writings. A strong collection of individuals who are working together to create the very best and safest results in any endeavor collectively is what organized labor exist as. Before this, there was nothing you could do wothout being told and whatever you may say simply had no meaning.
I am disappionted in the lack of participation within my local and the lack of finding ways to increase the participation by the union. I must be a member in good standing for one year in order to become an officer within our union. Oh yes i will and I intend to gain results. A strong union makes a strong employee. This old steelworker knows this very well.
Barack Obama will polarize both parties. He will create a bridge between labor and industry to communicate more efficiently. i like him because he is 46, my age. He also smokes Marlboros, and so do I.