U.S. unions ready to push new laws if Dems win big

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Reuters

By Nick Carey

CHICAGO (Reuters) - If the Democrats hold both houses of the U.S. Congress and take the White House in the 2008 elections, America's struggling unions plan to trade their political support for a raft of labor-friendly bills.

"It's early to say but if the Democrats were to take the presidency," as well as Congress, said Bill Samuel, legislation director of the AFL-CIO labor federation, "this could be an opportunity for historic change."

Analysts say Big Labor will push for legislation to make forming unions easier, restrict free-trade pacts, raise corporate taxes and reform the creaking health-care system.

"There is a real threat the Democrats may take the White House and extend their majorities in the House and Senate with the support of the unions," said Brian Darling, a congressional analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0464767220071104

---

FULL 3 page story at link.

[MikeNearMcChord]

1. And if any DLC'er satnds in the way.

RUN 'EM OVER!:evilgrin: Or show the the door to the Republican Party!

[Yael]

2. Yet so many are supporting the candidate of NAFTA

:(

[Sam Ervin jret]

3. Find a way to make NAFTA work for the UNIONS or

show it the door.

[Odin2005]

6. Turn it into the North American FAIR Trade Agreement!!! n/t.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. My thoughts exactly

and some support Bush and the republicans in my area. We had some UAW leaders on a committee with us a year ago planning a welcoming event for a scheduled presidential visit. And these UAW guys kept wanting us to tone down what we wanted to do. They didn't want us to mention the war, as many of their members supported it. Then they asked us not to be too in your face to the president, as some of their members had voted for him! That's when I just couldn't stand it anymore, and I asked these UAW guys why the hell they were coming to our planning meetings if they supported the president and his war. :wtf:

A year later, I still don't get it.

[Yael]

16. Oh wow.

Talk about drinking the kool aide.

:(

[DCKit]

4. "Fair Trade" not "Free Trade" nt

[tomreedtoon]

5. Isn't that support needed BEFORE the election?

Okay, that's the first part. The second part is, unions (including mine) have been steady supporters of Democrats for years, and have gotten nothing for their support. Most recently, the spineless Class of 2006.

Now, unions know they won't get anything from Republicans, and the Democrats are the only choice. But it might be better for the unions to "threaten" the Democratic Party to have its members sit home unless the Party stands behind at least a few required reforms like those mentioned.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Most of us steady Democratic supporters aren't getting much from the Dems these days

unless you want to count FISA, a non-ending war and an AG who won't admit waterboarding is torture.

[TomClash]

7. You mean the NLRB will actually have to work?

Shocking!

[maxanne]

8. sure they will

If labor were really interested in serious reform, they'd be lining up behind Dennis Kucinich who has promised to cancel NAFTA, and the WTO. He's in favor of single payer health care. Instead, they line up behind corporate candidates who will perpetuate the status quo.

It's hard to take this huffing and puffing very seriously.

[w4rma]

11. They aren't backing Kucinich because he would be a waste of resources to back.

Unions want that reform and the fact that they aren't lining up behind a vanity candidate helps show that they want those reforms.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. So they back pro-NAFTA/corporate candidates?

Yeah, that makes sense!! :sarcasm:

[Megahurtz]

18. Exactly. n/t

[provis99]

9. notice the weasel words in the Reuters article

Reuters is a right wing European organization. They refer to unions in this article as "Big Labor". Like its a "Big Monster" or something. How about instead they call it "Representatives of the Working People"? Reuters jerkoffs.

[aquart]

10. Golly, I hope so.

I wouldn't be desperately upset if the Heritage Foundation did a Jim Jones in despair, either.

[dysfunctional press]

15. don't count on it, my brothers.

the democratic party in this country has been replaced with the dlc corporatist party.

they aren't interested in ending the war in iraq OR the war on the middle class.

[Acadia Blue]

17. Pleeze if there is a God, let this happen. Save us from RePIGS

[LynnTheDem]

19. "There is a real threat the Democrats may take the White House and extend their majorities..."

"Threat" would = the bushCartel. Even the rightwing HF realizes that. But party trumps everything when you're a rightwingnut.

[Dark]

20. I think, at the start of the first sentence, he means "When the Democrats" not "If the Democrats" nt