Home / General / Labor and Hillary

Labor and Hillary

/
/
/
1675 Views

108185_Richard-Trumka-HIllary-Clinton

To paraphrase Hamilton Nolan, did organized labor fuck up by supporting Hillary Clinton?

That is not probable, of course. With the backing of the big unions, Hillary Clinton stands today as the statistically likely nominee. Since Sanders’ upset win in the Michigan primary, she has been raising her voice about her promised opposition to the TPP and other free trade agreements that she supported not too long ago. So it is as good at time as ever for labor leaders to ruefully review Hillary’s actual record on these things. As Dan Kaufman laid out in the New York Times this weekend, that record is not encouraging. She was a happy Walmart board member as the company busted unions; she has repeatedly talked out of both sides of her mouth on free trade, assuring workers she is against various free trade agreements during campaigns only to help enact them once she is safely in power. At a time when manufacturing wages have been stagnant for 35 years and wage inequality across the board continues to grow, there is nothing in Hillary Clinton’s record that should give average workers confidence that she will keep her many promises to them if the political situation should favor breaking those promises.

By backing the perceived safe choice over the candidate who actually agrees with it more, the labor movement helped to ensure that the candidate who agrees with it more will not get the nomination—during what could well be the only election campaign in our lifetime that a candidate as pro-labor as Bernie Sanders could actually win, thanks to the insane and unelectable opponent that the other side could nominate.

Well done, union leaders. You have successfully sold your own interests out in advance. When Hillary Clinton inevitably sells you out again in the future, you’ll have no one to blame but yourselves.

Meanwhile, Dan Kaufman has a Times op-ed asking Hillary which side she is on:

The depth of Mrs. Clinton’s estrangement from labor may not be known until April 5, when Wisconsin holds its primary. Since 1960, no Democrat has won the general election without winning the state, and a loss to Mr. Sanders in Wisconsin could foreshadow trouble against Donald Trump, whose opposition to free trade helped propel him to victory in Michigan. Exit polls there showed that a majority of Republican voters also believe that free trade takes away American jobs. Mr. Trump decisively won that group. “You know, Michigan has been stripped,” Mr. Trump told CNN’s Anderson Cooper the day after his victory. “You look at those empty factories all over the place. And nobody hits that message better than me.”

While Mrs. Clinton’s pro-union shout out at the debate resonated widely, many of Wisconsin’s labor activists remain skeptical. “A lot of our job problems stem from NAFTA, and the TPP will kill us,” Gerry Miller, a United Steelworkers welder at a Caterpillar plant in South Milwaukee, told me last month. “We can’t compete with people being paid two dollars a day in Vietnam. The thing that we’re most upset about is the pandering. Democrats like Clinton speak labor out of one side of their mouth, but the corporate interests pull the strings.” (Mr. Scott estimates that adoption of TPP will result in the net loss of roughly 40,000 jobs in Wisconsin, 215,000 in Michigan and 113,000 in Ohio.)

While Mrs. Clinton has received the endorsement of many of the large national unions, the A.F.L.-C.I.O. has not yet taken sides. Many union locals have chosen to back Mr. Sanders. David Poklinkoski, the president of IBEW Local 2304, a Wisconsin utility union, said his local had never endorsed anyone for any office before, but recently passed a unanimous resolution endorsing Mr. Sanders. Mr. Poklinkoski praised the senator’s consistent opposition to free-trade agreements.

After the Milwaukee debate, Mr. Poklinkoski told me that two of his members who watched it came away as Sanders supporters. But Mr. Poklinkoski was alarmed to hear that the men’s second choice was Mr. Trump. Mr. Poklinkoski believes Mrs. Clinton could be vulnerable in Wisconsin.

“I’m worried about Trump versus Hillary,” Mr. Poklinkoski said. He noted that at home Governor Walker had successfully portrayed himself as an anti-tax, blue-collar politician, an image that helped him divide Wisconsin’s workers during the state’s labor battles. “If you have a right-wing populist, you can beat a corporate Democrat,” Mr. Poklinkoski said. “Scott Walker did it three times here.”

A few points here.

1) Hillary Clinton is not and likely never will be a big supporter of organized labor. We know which side she is on–the side of corporations, more or less. This is well-established. If we imagine a scenario where Trump is such a downticket disaster that the Democrats sweep every contested Senate race and end up with 55 votes (not that I think this is likely). With a fairly significant majority that is by and large quite progressive, does anyone think Hillary Clinton will expend that fleeting political capital on the Employee Free Choice Act or a $15 national minimum wage? She might seek an $12 wage, maybe. But EFCA is going to be a lower priority, just like labor’s priorities always are.

2) Bernie Sanders would, almost without question, be better for organized labor than Hillary Clinton.

3) The core of the labor movement in 2016, especially the public sector unions, are African-American and Latino workers. These voters overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton.

4) SEIU and other unions did survey their members before endorsing Hillary Clinton. Those members said they wanted to vote for Hillary Clinton.

5) Those surveys were so early that most voters did not know who Bernie Sanders was at that time. Would those surveys look differently today? Somewhat, no doubt. Would they absolutely for Bernie Sanders? I doubt it, although they may in some unions.

6) Internationals endorsed Hillary early because like everyone else in the country, they thought the race was over before it started and they wanted to show early support to be favored during her administration. Turns out things are more competitive than they thought and it turns out that the Republicans are nominating Donald Trump, an incomprehensible thought 8 months ago.

The question that unions should be asking themselves is whether to endorse this early in the future. That’s a complicated question. These may be somewhat unique circumstances. But what would a Bernie Sanders endorsement look like? Nolan suggests that Hillary is winning in no small part because of Big Union support. This is dubious. With the possible exception of the disastrous and poorly run Nevada caucuses, there is no solid evidence that official union support has affected any of these primaries in any substantial way. Lots of union members don’t listen to their own internationals and vote for whoever they want to, including Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Sanders was able to win Michigan despite all those endorsements, largely because union members are independent members of society and can think for themselves. Moreover, in most states, unions have almost no power at all. All of those southern states where Hillary built her lead? None of them have any meaningful union presence. I don’t think there is any substantial delegate difference if unions don’t endorse Hillary early.

I’m not downplaying the money and organizational support unions provide, but they provide less and less of that every election cycle because they are being decimated in the states. That’s the core of Friedrichs, mercifully stalled. Conservatives don’t care about workers right to use their money this way or not that way. They care about kneecapping the organized labor that supports Democrats.

What would the alternative look like? What if none of the big internationals had endorsed early? A couple of things, I think. Unions could have hosted debates and forced Clinton to defend her Wall Street positions. They could have used their power to support Sanders. If it happened to work and he happened to win and he defeated Trump, then sure, that’s great. It’s all shooting the moon and you can understand why labor would not take that chance. If union leaders believe a Democrat is going to win the election, they are going to support them. These are not idealistic people. They are hard-nosed realists. I’m not saying that it was the best choice in this particular election but I can’t blame them for making it, even knowing Hillary Clinton’s flaws.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar
Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views :