Disclaimer: My father’s labor union paid a substantial chunk of my college tuition through a scholarship I received, so I’m far from unbiased on this topic.
John Kerry is expected to receive the endorsement of the AFL-CIO tomorrow. Surprise anyone?
This, from the AFL-CIO’s website, surprised me:
Unions’ political work is not about electing Democrats or Republicans—it’s about electing people who stand up for working people.
Theoretically, that means they could endorse either Bush or the Democratic nominee. Theoretically. One look at their website, however, tells you they’re as “ABB” as anyone out there.
Taking them at their word, this would indicate they’ve already decided Bush does not stand up for working people. Given Mankiw’s gaffe, it’s not surprising they feel that way, but are workers to Bush, what the South is to Kerry (a forgone losing proposition)? Or should Bush try harder to win the votes of working Americans’ (translation: Americans who belong to unions)?
I ask because I’ve seen great strides in the Republican party to be more inclusive in my lifetime. It seems to me, however, that Republicans would just as soon see Unions disappear than court their support. Am I wrong?
“It seems to me, however, that Republicans would just as soon see Unions disappear than court their support. Am I wrong?”
Sorta: it’s not so much that Republicans hate unions as it is that we don’t see much point in getting their leadership on-side. The AFL-CIO can officially endorse whomever they like, but that doesn’t mean that the rank-and-file will go along with them. Reagan taught us that one. 🙂
Oh, yeah: it was a union that made sure my family had enough money for me to go to college, and I’d no more cross a picket line than I would spit on the flag.
Imagine a race between Pat Buchanan and Bill Clinton- Clinton was responsible for NAFTA, Buchanan runs on a populist platform. In that sort of scenario it’s possible to imagine labor endorsements heading rightward. But at least since Reagan fired the air tower controllers and probably for quite a while longer, the GOP has been openly antagonistic towards labor’s interests.
I think you need to separate the AFL-CIO leadership from the rank and file workers. Bush has a lot more support among the workers than he does among their leaders. I would assert that the workers tend to have red state values, while the union leaders tend to have blue state values.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to discuss why the union rank and file members are out of sync with the union leadership?
I’d no more cross a picket line than I would spit on the flag.
Ditto. Just couldn’t do either, regardless of how wrong the union was or how upset I was with the administration in power. I’m hard-wired to reject both as an option.
Imagine a race between Pat Buchanan and Bill Clinton…In that sort of scenario it’s possible to imagine labor endorsements heading rightward.
Yeah, I suppose, but most of my otherwise socially conservative family find the idea of voting for a Republican President similar to spitting on a flag…they just couldn’t bring themselves to do it…they have zero faith that a Republican President would not screw them royally (and this current one isn’t do much to dispel that belief); again, they’re hardwired that way. Oddly enough, my Dad did vote for a Republican Congressman once, but you must understand, we live in Trafficant’s district (we’re loyal, but we’re not retarded).
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to discuss why the union rank and file members are out of sync with the union leadership?
Might be more the case than my personal experience reveals, but I think if it were a large majority, the leadership would have to change.
The leadership has to represent its members economic interests; ergo, as long as Republicans are representing the interests of business executives, labor leaders must support the Democrats regardless of social values.
Wow…I’m glad praktike said that, because it would have taken me three times as many words.
Which brings me back to my top pet peeve with this administration’s attitude toward labor (and something that actually answers my first question about Bush’s desire to court labor):
The Labor Department is suggesting ways employers can avoid paying overtime to newly eligible workers in its proposal.
The lame jerks even had the nerve to suggest:
I mean it’s not like the rest of the federal government hasn’t been reconfigured to help employers rip off workers under Bush, he’s got the g.d. Labor Department doing his CEO pals’ dirty work too.
Not to venture too far off-topic here, but George Will spends a whole column today defending Greg Mankiw’s Job Losses are Good speech.
Three possibilities come to mind:
Any other thoughts?
Only if one is silly enough to accept a definition of “working Americans” which deliberately excludes 82% of the American labor force.
Bush (and Rove I assume) look at chipping away at the working peoples’ mass by going after specific social issues.
Republicans have been doing that forever. How else did they get the South.
A little anti-choice here, a little anti-affirmative action there, some anti-gay rights here, some family tax relief there.
Unions don’t have the political strength they used to because they don’t have the voting discipline they used to.