2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy is Bernie struggling to get union support?
Many people on anonymous message boards claim Hillary is a tool of the wealthy 1%, yet large unions keep endorsing Hillary and not Bernie.
Hmmmmm......who should I believe? Unions or anonymous people on message boards?
I think I'll go with unions.
A major coalition of building and construction unions announced its support for Hillary Clinton for president on Thursday, adding to the Democratic front-runner's growing stockpile of labor endorsements.
<...>
The Building Trades coalition includes the Teamsters, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Laborers' International Union of North America, among others. Individual unions within the coalition still make their own presidential endorsements. (LIUNA has already endorsed Clinton on its own.) Many building trade unions skew toward white, working-class men, a demographic that some polls suggest Clinton could struggle with.
Clinton has been running away with union endorsements despite Democratic presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders' long-running relationship with organized labor. Sanders has been one of the most vocal supporters of collective bargaining in Congress throughout his career, but some of the largest unions have already thrown their weight behind Clinton. That includes the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the nation's two largest teacher unions.
Overall, Clinton has picked up more than a dozen national union endorsements, compared with two for Sanders -- National Nurses United and the American Postal Workers Union.
When people claim Hillary is a tool of the "Fascist Oligarchy", I really have a hard time taking them seriously.
In fact, I just laugh at them.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)are blowing smoke. I know. I was a union leader for several. Its almost sublime to watch the body tell and show the leadership where to shove their endorsements.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)I know they do this and I imagine it comes down to money somewhere but I don't know where.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)People in power support others in power and expect the same in return. It's a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type of arrangement.
We see the same thing in business where all the rich sit on each others board of directors. No one votes to harm another because it will come back to bite them.
This is by design, not a defect.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)of course! I don't know why I couldn't see it. I've known about that all along but forgot in respect to the unions. Thanks for answering.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Most unions aren't what they used to be. Except for the Nurse's Union.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)narrative of this primary season and compare it on a time line with the polls.
If she wins IA she is the devil and if she wins NH too she is the anti-Christ and we all need exorcisms.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... release of positive polling news for Hillary, and whenever she received another endorsement. The degree of Hillary's success can be measured by observing the level of anger and discontent expressed by Bernie's supporters.
I'm sure there must be a relatively simple mathematical formula for it somewhere.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)... release of positive polling news for Bernie, and whenever he received another endorsement. The degree of Bernie's success can be measured by observing the level of anger and discontent expressed by hillary's supporters.
Well, would you look at that. It works the other around.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)How extraordinarily clever!
But, you know, honestly I can't recall the last bit of good news that Bernie has had. It's been such a long time. Perhaps back when Nina Turner endorsed him... but what else has there been? Any governors, senators, national unions? What?
Anything? Anyone?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)It's meltdown mode now.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)It is Hillary suporters who resort to name calling without expalanation and sheepish bleats of she is winning in the polls over and over rather than discuss issues. do you not realize we do not judge Hillary by what others think but by our ownanalysis of facts we observe regarding her history and stated positions on issues most important to us. We are not sheepish followers as are Hillary supporters but proud and loud supporters of the positions held by Bernie, annd not universally supported in any way by Hillary. We resent your ridiculous and unsupported comments. It is often heard in democratic party meetings that we must most importantly elect any democrat over any republican and must not therefore wound Hillary by direct comparisons with Bernie and further stating to so do would be akoin to treason to the party itself. When I first heard this I felt if a fair campaign could be waged on the issues by both sides I could do this. But after recognizing the Imapct of large oligarchy donors on the Hillary campaign, the purchased main stream media support of Hillary and their desire to avoid except to attack Bernie's position without justiifcation, I had to back away from that willingness not to make direct comparisons. I am now convinced that the democratic party has moved away from support of the people following money from the rich and acting to calm the people and prevent a revolt against rich donors who fund campaigns of democrats.
After a while I have changed my mind and now work only for Bernie rather than a party- you see Bernie gets me because he is me and he is the people in our minds just as we know he knows we are him because we share the same progressive
values. This revolution has continued in our minds for decades as we fought for good in our community and against third way democratic, it was expanded to the young people gaining wisdom and forming the Occupy movement which added needed notoriety to our cause of remedying the wrongs instituted by the oligarchy. Occupy united the young and the the people. Many of the young people were not knowledgeable about the ways the oligarchy was responsible for the bleak present and future they correctly saw for themselves and listened to brilliant activists like Bill McKibben and economists like Chomsky and Wolf, and progressive Senators for the people like Senator Warren, Senator Sherrod Brown, and Senator Bernie Sanders. Thus the young people embraced the values of the older activists forever enshrining those ideas and creating the beginning of the ongoing revolution to amplify that most basic desire of our people and that is the desire to make the best lives and futures we can make from their collective will as expressed by true democracy. AS it became known that progressive attitudes were more mainstream and influential economists around the world and here at home began to speak to us about the threats the rich oligarchy posed to our financial and physical health with their ever increasing demand we work more for less and their pollution of pour coiuntry through polluting our air and water in their ever increasing production of fossil fuels for sale. Wars in the middle east are now pretty much universally seen as originating from desires for oil riches. The folly of our willingness to install and depose their tyrants have been revealed first in Iran and now most blatantly in these wars within Iraq and Syria. Our past and continued support of those we receive the best oil deals from is on display as Saudi Arabia funds ISIS and other Sunni Muslim groups seeking to destroy Shiite or non-sectarian countries governments in the middle east. Even worse NATO member Turkey has been purchasing the black market oil that ISIS sells, so we have a NATO country who has signed a mutual protection treaty with other members working with ISIS an avowed enemy of NATO and the USA. And not to long ago Turkey had the 5th most capable army in the world according to military estimates. So now we are down that hole that capitalism has dug for us. No one can trust us to defend -people or democracy or even human rights when they see crony and unbridled capitalism is ruling our foreign affairs with an inhuman and unfeeling hand in its everlasting search for more wealth.
We are awakening to the souce of our problems here at home and recognize that it creates our wars, destroys our welfare, and the planet. Only one candidate has directly attacked the crony capitalist purchase of our government and theft of our democracy by the oligarchy and since it is the answer to who is responsible for so many woes, the people as they hear the dots connected are demanding loudly and more loudly that this has to end before more damage is done. No, the revolution is not about Bernie, it did not start with him and it would not die if he did not exist any longer. It is a revolution of thought, a true enlightenment of the people who will not rest until their democracy is in place. Bernie's election would be a great accomplishment but the revolution is on and cannot be stopped with platitudes , ingratiations, and crumbs of the oligarchy doled out by their chief negotiator Hillary Clinton. The progressive base of the country is uniting in a call for their commonwealth throu for his civilgh democracy. That call is no-partisan, partisan, and bipartisan. In any way it is our attempt to reconcile our reality with what we have been told to value utmost in our civics and history classes even though most of those books hid the sins of the rich oligarchy throughout our entire history as a Nation. They use this message of freedom and democracyto stir us to fight their wars and support their candidates,and they stirred us to hate against other races, other countries and even our own countrymen based on their based on lies which fed our fears and insecurities creating convenient scapegoats and protecting their commanding role in our misfortunes. The genie is out of the bottle, and the genie is the truth, and that truth leads us to a political revolution, a revolution that will spread throughout our country and support peoples revolution over the world against oppression. Here at home, we want a peaceful political revolution and only can hope the establishment controlled by the oligarchy does not react with the unwarranted force our police often do now when blinded with non-factual information, or lack of possible training or respect for the dignity of the public based on perceived political powerlessness of the victim and/or assumed false threat to their own safety. We need Bernie and soon. Obama was seen as an example of an advancement in equality. Bernie is a further advancement. In some ways this can be likened to struggles of another famous democratic socialist. Martin Luther King Jr. is so well renowned for his civil rights accomplishments to achieve. But so ofen we are not reminded that he was killed when his message turned to fighting against economic inequality and for a better share of income for the worker. Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered after he was perceived as a substantial threat to the rich oligarchy., as was John Kennedy, and Bobby Kennedy if you notice. What happened on that graasy knoll in Dallas or in the sewer under it may never truly be ascertained but we do know that Kennedy fought the establishment, as did Bobby Kennedy who already hated them due to his brothers death and looked to become President, and Martin Luther King Jr.
was preaching against the inequities and the wars we fought at their behest around the world. When threatening to overthrow the control of the country by the rich established oligarchy our champions have been murdered. Like the slaves after defeat by Roman soldiers of Spartacus, when told they would avoid death by telling which was Spartacus, we must all yell loudly that we are all progressives against the oligarchy and for democracy. We must remove those who would subvert this goal from the democratic party, and expand the direction and number of our party united in this most important cause. If Bernie wins great, but if not we will continue to increase our efforts in this cause. If we wins, we will have solidified in the minds of our nation that the people can win and then move on to steps leading to election of legislators who work for their constituents rather than large donors. Go Bernie for democracy!
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I will read it later.
This polls vs issues thing is bogus.
Your side is so devoid of reality there is no discussing issues possible.
We post polls because it puts the truth to the lies you all tell about Hillary.
MeNMyVolt
(1,095 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Because they don't believe he is a viable general election candidate despite his doing ever so slightly better in some match ups with the GO(PU) than Hillary...All these unions have political directors who are capable of taking nuanced looks at such things.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... since polls show that NOT TO BE TRUE any more. Bernie polls better against Republican candidates than Hillary does, and therefore in winning (even if she might also win) will likely get more voters to help with other elections to help us rebuild a congressional majority for Democrats with more turnout for Bernie reflected in greater numbers of votes for Democrats downstream.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Hillary Clinton has been in the political fray for forty years. As an independent senator from a sparsely populated, rural, and homogeneous state Senator Sanders hasn't even been on the radar so we have no idea how he would weather under an all out assault.
When you look at aggregate polling the head to head differences are statistically insignificant. If you have evidence to the contrary it is incumbent upon you to produce it otherwise we are wasting each other's time.
I will wait for it.
Thank you in advance.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Polls show that, whether Bernie's lead is conclusive or not conclusive, it is certainly NOT conclusive contrary to the earlier mantra that we need Hillary in the general election to beat Republicans.
And I would argue that the polls are TRENDING towards Bernie growing his poll position strength and Hillary's over time is losing strength, just as it lost strength in numbers in the last election.
doc03
(35,363 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,999 posts)He does have 2 national union endorsements, compared to Hillary's 15 and it looks as though he is going to have to rely on local unions. Here's an local article on it:
The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign touts 15 national union endorsements. Sanders has just two representing postal workers and nurses.
As Clintons credentials pile up, the Sanders campaign is pushing back by casting big unions as another part of the entrenched Democratic establishment that has rejected him.
Within the national unions that have endorsed Clinton, however, a few local chapters have dissented.
The largest union in the country, the National Education Association, endorsed Clinton. The NEA in Vermont has thrown its support behind Sanders.
Clinton announced a major endorsement from the Service Employees International Union, which includes 2 million members. Two SEIU chapters in New Hampshire chose Sanders instead.
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2015/11/27/lacking-endorsements-sanders-relies-local-unions/76367830/
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)TSIAS
(14,689 posts)I believe it is simple. Clinton is the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic nomination. They are likely to endorse her over any Republican, so why risk crossing their likely ally before the general election.
I don't think they want to go the way of Bill Richardson and Claire McCaskill by going against the Clinton Machine.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)they would fear reprisals from Hillary, if they back Hillary and Bernie wins they know he won't hold any grudges against them.
I don't put much stock in endorsements anyway, does anyone know if they still influence people? Or are they just good for bragging rights?
floriduck
(2,262 posts)warmth and enthusiasm for MoveOn.org when they accurately endorsed Barack Obama.
no_hypocrisy
(46,160 posts)Martin Eden
(12,875 posts)Union leaders are political players, and they don't want to lose access to power.
Seriously, who sincerely believes that President Bernie Sanders wouldn't be as good and more likely better than Hillary in serving the interests of union members and American workers in general?
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)I like his ideas, and many of my union pals do too, but they don't have as broad of an appeal as political nerds think. Not every school teacher thinks the problem in her classroom is Wall Street, for instance. I know because I used to try to broach privatization, etc. in lots of teacher forums, and the result was largely meh. (There are core groups who work on that, but it is by no means universal.)
You have to find out what people think about the problems they are having and listen to the reasons they are having them. Trying to just patch your thing onto all circumstances is alienating to people.
I think we just saw which approach works to win over 75% of organized labor.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)With whom the think is going to be the nominee.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)who isn't a viable candidate.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)There is no way to know, but I would bet dollars to donuts he wouldn't have even entered the race if Elizabeth Warren had decided to.
Bernie the "Grandstander"... I've heard it all now.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I really have a hard time taking them serioulsy"
from some reason it also reminds me of the scene in Forrest Gump. The one where Jenny's wannabe activist boyfriend slaps her around in the Black Panther club house, and blames it on the "...bullshit war"
the excuses are ridiculous for why Bernie supporters must constatnly slam Hillary, why they won't vote for her, why all corporations are bad, why all rich people are bad, why all banks are bad etc. Yep, most of it ridiculous.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Good call, you got us.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Not principled.
If they back Bernie and lose, what can they expect? If they back Hillary and Bernie beats her, what will happen then?
I'll predict that Bernie will get more union rank and file. They don't make the endorsements.
--imm
Hekate
(90,779 posts)They know union members do better with a Democrat in the White House, and they know damn well the current crop of GOPers will put the final touch on the tombstone of the unions in this country.
Therefore, they may think the Independent from the small rural state is a swell guy, but they truly want to win and put a strong lifelong Democrat in the White House.
DebbieCDC
(2,543 posts)who do you think "wins"?
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)I believe union leaders are betting now Clinton wins, and they don't want to be left in the cold. But I believe most rank and file are not exactly enamored with her.
I think the union leaders are making a mistake though because even if she wins I doubt you'll see policies partiuclarly conducive to labor. Trade approaches like the TPP will be more the norm than the exception.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Union Management long ago forgot where they came from.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)We've been hearing for months that Clinton is more electable than Sanders. She owns the advantage of name recognition and is the safe (i.e. establishment) candidate. Anything that falls outside of the norm/establishment may be considered a liability. My assumption is that union leaders are more familiar with Hillary by default and are therefore are more likely to guide their unions to support her.
We'll see how it all plays out in the end. Plenty of time left.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)S'truth
jalan48
(13,881 posts)All that union support may be misplaced, but then Bill received lots of it himself prior to NAFTA. People who can't remember the past are condemned to repeat it as the adage goes.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Hillary has as difficult a time finding "comfortable shoes" with which she can join picket lines or not. I'm betting such shoes don't exist. Not when she's taken SO MUCH money from opponents of labor.
Union leaders have been TOLD by DWS just WHO their "nominee" is gonna be. Hard not to place your bets when you already KNOW where the wheel's gonna stop. Of course, there's that "one person - one vote" baloney.
jalan48
(13,881 posts)For a few like DWS it's extremely cynical, for her true believers it's delusional. All we can do is sit back and laugh at the spectacle.
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)folks being SO determined to be blind to the bare and glaring truths!
jalan48
(13,881 posts)Her stand on many issues and policies is secondary. I can understand the sentiment, a woman as POTUS is long overdue. The sad thing is the euphoria will wear off after a short time, except for periodical rah rahs and "she broke the glass ceiling!" shouts. Afterwards we will be left with a conservative Democrat with strong ties to Wall Street and the big banks as our President. And even worse, we can pretty much expect a Republican when her time is up. Sixteen straight years of Democrats in the White House will be all the Republicans need to say. It will be "their turn".
Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)It's ALL about gender and the seemingly deliberate blindness to the issues facing us as a NATION. If Trump ends up in the White House, I hope the Clintons move to some third world country. It would be fitting for them to live in a country equal to the one she's going to create by assuring Trump's ascension to the presidency.
Martin Eden
(12,875 posts)I was going to say WE SHALL SEE, but hopefully we won't.
Doitnow
(1,103 posts)she stands on the TPP?
jalan48
(13,881 posts)It will be, "I need to look at it closer, some things I don't like, some are ok, more study is needed".
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Guess they weren't too invested in that $15 minimum wage thing they were going on about before that ndorsement, huh?
SunSeeker
(51,662 posts)Bleacher Creature
(11,257 posts)Same reason why I support her, despite the fact that I (and likely many union leaders) feel more comfortable with Sanders on a policy level.
Menshunables
(88 posts)The ruling class of those unions are trying to plug the hole in the dam by hoping to discourage Sanders supporters. Not going to work, we know, we talk, we will not be fooled and we will all vote how we personally feel, not by how someone wants us to.
mythology
(9,527 posts)In all of these endorsements, they talk about polling their members and Clinton winning those handily.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)they likely laugh at you, and share your disdain as well.
thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)HRC is almost certainly going to get the nomination. Being on her good side may bring benefits. There's no comparable upside for endorsing BS since he is far less likely to get the nomination. On the off-chance he does, he's going to be good for labor whether they endorsed him or not because, after all, that's basically the foundation of his platform. So a Hillary endorsement is a no-lose move for them.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Bernie has no record of being vindictive. They've nothing to lose by crossing him, even if he wins, because he'll still support labor.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)They know Hillary can or at least is more likely be able to deliver.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)not the union top brass - who tend to be a bit more self oriented when it comes to favors.
an example is how several of the unions endorsing hillary did not bother to include their working members in the decision to support her.
i grew up in a union family and belonged to 2 unions over 15 years. benefited in many ways from the what unions have accomplished to improve worker pay, benefits, etc. however, some people at the top of some unions are not wholly trustworthy - doing things for their self interests. this is a no-no in bernie's book.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)We're busy winning.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)So the 'winning' is just in your head and hopes at this point.
If Clinton wins then I won't begrudge you the victory lap and high fives.
Until then I will laugh at the hubris.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You go with that. Your guy can't get any endorsements so that should tell you something.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Polls are not votes. As much as you wish they were.
When the votes come in, then we will know what the people's (well those that bother to vote) choice is.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Don't be mad.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Nope.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I'm just noticing Bernie supporters really losing it the more it becomes apparent he won't win. I've been disappointed about elections before, but I think it's a bit much to get angry to that extent. It's not like Dubya's going to get a third term or anything.
Bernie couldn't pass any of his proposals anyway, so it doesn't make much difference in the scheme of things.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)You will preen and prance regardless.
Clinton won't get shit done for working families, unions, the poor, or minorities with a rethug Congress either.
What we will get is increased authoritarianism, harsher policing, more war, and more inequality, because that will be the only thing that the fascists that control the GOP will agree to.
So pick your poison this primary season. Someone who will at least hold the line against the corruption or someone who will move rightward to 'get things done.'
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)As I explained. Your venom against Hillary has no basis in fact.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)"Your venom against Hillary has no basis in fact."
modestybl
(458 posts)... they are going with the "safe bet". And from their point of view, it makes sense. If they were to endorse Sanders and HRC is the nominee, they could expect a backlash from an HRC administration. If they endorse HRC and Sanders wins the nomination, there would be no repercussions from the Sanders team. The Clintons have a reputation for rewarding friends and punishing adversaries.
Given a choice between HRC and a Repub, the unions MIGHT get a better deal with HRC. She will take care of her donor base first and foremost. The rest of us will get whatever is left over...
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Sorry.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)?
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And they always polled us. Thanks for asking. SEIU also teamed up with an org I co- founded to create political action. The leaders do not ignore the members. That's just bullshit. Sorry.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Does that make any sense to you?
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)I'm solid for Hillary
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)Why did the afl cio throw out the communists?
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)Why rely on either internet voters or union leaders?
daybranch
(1,309 posts)because they are cautious and believe they will profit personally from the endorsement of the pre-ordained winner of the primaries. But do not be so confused as to believe that those committed to Bernie are not more enthusiastic and work therefore much harder than Hillary's people who seem much more eager to stay isolated rather than involve themselves in discussion of issues. To me and most Americans to watch Hiillary's stated positions on the issues and the statements of past President Carter and studies of government and the economic inequality pointed out by Pikkety it is hard to deny that our government is overly afflicted with influence buying by the rich and their donations to Clinton's campaign are based on the fact that their donations to her have been a great investment and further investment as they do now will as when she was Senator from New York provide favoritism to their positions over that of the rest of us.
So unless you can make a better argument than fools flock together, i ain't buying into a follow a leader approach. as adquate justification, the I go with the union leadership clearly indicates you are a follower looking for easy direction from authority figures than using your own brain to examine the issues. Your trust is admirable but although I am a great supporter of unions I am also aware of the fallibility of heads of unions and the temptations they toom face. hoffa was an example of the temptations and the inability to fight the oligarchy effectively over the last 30 or more years resulting in reduced membership and adverse labor actions for working men and women on general does not connote any desire on my part to rely on their infallible judgrment. so if you would like to say something other than union leaders often go for the lessor of two evils when they feel one of them ( Hillary) in this case will win, rather than a candidate who has really supported their union members strongly and consistently for decades. it is no victory for us to elect republican liight Hillary -the established oligarchy's favorite.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Nothing as far as I can tell. Unions want political power, and that isn't Bernie.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)They endorse Clinton so she grants them access to political power.
Those unions that don't can fuck off.
That's a clear enough message.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Dems and unions are aligned. They are allies. That means they share the same goals and objectives. And they give political power TO EACH OTHER.
It's hardly a one way street. And it's hardly unique to Hillary.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)It is with the Clintons. You pay to play.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)But they have rendered themselves almost powerless.
While overpaid union bosses eat with politicians the rank and file still wait for the passage of the EFCA.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)You just can't face facts. It's the same as the skewed poll nonsense we see here.
George II
(67,782 posts)And its comical to see some of the rationalizations for his lack of support among organized labor, among them:
"They don't want to buck the establishment"
"They don't want to risk retaliation"
"The endorsements have been made by management, not rank-and-file"
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)The reasons they don't endorse him are clear. The excuses comical, as you suggest.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)I can't believe Bernie Sanders would be good with his followers attacking unions like this. SMH
INdemo
(6,994 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 3, 2015, 11:46 PM - Edit history (1)
Endorsed Hillary
But so far it's the Exec boards of these unions and it's not necessarily the opinions/s of the General membership
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)I've been an IBEW member since 1967 and always proud and happy to identify myself with that Union. I always will be. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything they do. My local union (#3, NYC) is quite likely the best run and most honest union in this nation but that doesn't mean the leadership is always right about everything they do. Even if that local supported HRC I'd still vote for Sanders. I think this country needs him a lot more than another Clinton or that buffoon Trump.
Having worked for years in an organization dominated by Harry Van Arsdale, Jr., I learned to honor consistency, integrity and honesty. To me Sanders demonstrates those qualities more than any other candidate now in the running in either party. So, he's got my vote and we'll see if lots of union MEMBERS agree.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Sometimes it's Republicans. Politics in NY is pretty Byzantine at times. There was a mini-revolution at the hall* at one period in time and our leaders were persuaded to back some insurgent Democrats. It worked out as the Democrats took control of Nassau County for a while**. Lol, sad face from another union that went the other way.
Though that's part of the joke. All unions want the same thing, more work. So every winning politician got some union support. Just like if Sanders or Clinton wins. They both got union support.
And this is something to consider. If Sanders wins, does anyone think he'll hold a grudge against union workers because of their leaders? No, he'll work just as hard as hard for them as if their union had supported him.
So you could say there's an element of playing it safe to the calculations of these unions.
*Kudos to female workers who explained they had a real problem with supporting politicians who wanted to deny them reproductive rights. And kudos to everybody else who pointed out other issues that we had with the Republicans. I had a chat with the business agent's son, who was/is climbing the ranks, and pointed out the electoral opportunity.
**Did not last, and our union donates to politicians of any stripe who will vote for work.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)... It's a matter of who, in the name of unions such as SEIU endorses candidates. This is not how union members are represented. Anyone who understands how union members stand behind a cause know better.
Gothmog
(145,496 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... to Hillary's union endorsements.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Same here!
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)supports...the Majority of votes within Any union will come from the workers...not the negotiators
The workers votes/support are all that matter to me. If they choose HRC. Fine. If they choose Bernie. Fine.
The rest of "them" are immaterial unless and until the rest of use are no longer allowed to vote.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)I said why in the hell did the leaders of this union endorse Hillary Clinton. She has stated bold face lies right into the media's camera's in the past, is in the pocket of Wall Street,Monsanto and large Banks. He said I know what you are saying. I said she thinks $12 min wage is acceptable when my ex many years ago in the carpenter's union made $22 hr with total 80/20 benefits. I made $15 an hour as a secretary back in 1988. And they want Hillary! Even $15 hour min is getting to low to afford all that is necessary to support a family. I said and you've have had plenty of very angry Bernie supporters in your ear since the endorsement haven't you. He said oh yes. The members want Bernie the big guys upstairs want the status quo to get what they want! They figure they better go with her because she has the money to win. Yet the members are furious that they endorsed her. I am one of them.