Obama, Democrats Losing Labor Union Support

[Little Star]

Source: TheHuffingtonPost.com

WASHINGTON — In the early days of the Obama administration, organized labor had grand visions of pushing through a sweeping agenda that would help boost sagging membership and help revive union strength.

Now labor faces this reality: Public employee unions are in a drawn-out fight for their very survival in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states where GOP lawmakers have curbed collective bargaining rights.

Also, many union leaders are grousing that the president they worked so hard to elect has not focused enough on job creation and other bold plans to get their members back to work.

"Obama campaigned big, but he's governing small," said Larry Hanley, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union.



Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/04/obama-democrats-labor-unions_n_948319.html?ref=email_share

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. Using the unions and making them stronger is the only way

anyone who thinks differently needs to think again. Unions need to be strong lobbyists.

[mother earth]

112. Absolutely!

[Deep13]

148. Exactly. I support the Ds to the extent...

...they support labor.

[Scurrilous]

2. The Nuge says different.

Nugent Celebrates Labor Day By Bashing Unions

<snip>

"The real purpose of Labor Day is a day for the Democratic Party to celebrate. Labor unions and their members are solidly in the Democratic camp. At every Democratic campaign rally, Big Labor is there."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201109030004

[PonyJon]

89. Vote a STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC BALLOT - give Obama a real majority to work with. nt

[TBF]

110. lolol - he started with a majority and squandered every opportunity -

and I would add the word "purposefully" to that sentence.

Why would another chance turn out any different?

[bluestate10]

136. How often can a lie be repeated?

Tell me. President Obama didn't start with a democratic majority that could not be usurped. The democratic House passed much progressive legislation before people of your ilk sat on their thumbs during the 2010 midterms and allowed republicans to gain control of the House. The problem that Obama had was in the Senate, with the 60 vote rule and Senators like Nelson, and the republican leaning dupe independent from Connecticut holding the 59th and 60th votes. With something like 20 democratic Senators up for re-election, many in semi red states, Reid is wise NOT to go the way of removing the 60 vote rule. Democrats in the Senate may very well need that rule to prevent passage of some of the most socially and economically regressive legislation ever seen in the country's history if people of your ilk again sit on their asses pining about purity and allow republicans to seize control of all of Congress.

[blackspade]

154. What condescending bullshit.

Folks like me did not 'sit on our thumbs' in 2010.
That is a DLC memo and a lie.
The Democratic Party controlled the House, Senate, and the PONTUS for two years and allowed themselves to be intimidated and filibustered into enabling the Rethugs.
It is fucking pathetic.

[bvar22]

118. Obama's "Promises" to Organized LABOR.

EFCA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMNVIQqatyU

NAFTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LtbLEKHsi0&NR=1


Cadillac Tax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8wmN3wvhNM&feature=player_embedded


Support for Striking Workers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA9KC8SMu3o

Where is THAT guy now that LABOR needs him?
He is out pushing for MORE Anti-LABOR Free Trade.

One can NOT be Pro-LABOR and support "Free Trade" at the same time.
The two ARE mutually exclusive.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their promises.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Lorien]

119. Did that. All it got us was a boatload of excuses

and GOP policies.

[Bluebear]

122. +

[Zorra]

126. He already shamelessly squandered the huge mandate we gave him

I'd rather give a real majority to a real Democrat who will use it to benefit me and the rest of the the people that voted for her/him, rather than squander it in service to our enemies.

[Pooka Fey]

134. You posted the same thing on a different thread today. Who are you?

DU is not designed for advertising campaigns. It's a discussion board.

[Marr]

135. Apparently some people have to work today.

It's very sad.

[Sheepshank]

143. Yes a real long lasting majority..a filibuster proof majority without blue dogs

Given the outright hatred towards Obama by the GOP, and the GOPs political savvy and acumen in bringing anything positive to a grinding halt, we need a strong long lasting filibuster proof majority. The Elected Conservatives hatred and contempt for the nation is so quickly forgotten....even the 50th time around. I don't think we can rely on the conservative constituents to wake up to that fact...their hatred of anything liberal is so overwhelming.

[sulphurdunn]

114. Ted would know.

Mr. I love big guns and shooting things that don't shoot back is a gutless, child molesting, chickenhawk pervert who didn't bathe for a month and then shit his pants to get himself a draft deferment. Why anyone would give voice to anything that twisted piece of shit has to say is beyond me.

[Bluzmann57]

132. Is he in the AFofM?

American Federation of Musicians. It is a real Union and many big names are still in the Union even though they can basically dictate terms of concerts, etc. Anyway, if Nugget, er, Nugent is still a Union member, they should just go ahead and revoke his membership. Some organizations are better off without certain members.

[Tiggeroshii]

149. Movements start at the grassroots and parties either ignore them or get behind them

...either way it will have been the people doing the work on the ground and in the field who deserve the credit, and very little going to the elected representatives.

[Deep13]

150. The Nuge shit his pants for several days to flunk the draft physical. nt

[tblue]

3. When Dems lose the unions, they lose the election

It's a mathematical certainty.

[pnorman]

7. And if the Democratic party loses next year,

the Labor Movement will lose like it has never lost before!

[quakerboy]

12. Dead is dead

And threats are pretty meaningless at that point.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cstanleytech]

75. That wasnt a threat but rather an opinion of what will likely happen

because look at the facts, it has been republicans and republican governors who havent been friendly to the unions and been signing these laws.
And blaming the dems and obama especially imo is stupid especially when it comes to obama because he has little to no control over what a state decides to do with its state employees and its state laws as long as the state laws dont violate the united states constitution.

[DeSwiss]

85. +1000

:thumbsup:

[SavWriter]

18. OK, perhaps you should think a moment

Does it matter if my dog is run over by a Prius or a Suburban? It is the end result that matters. If the unions die because of lack of jobs, lack of opportunity, and lack of support from the Government. Does it matter if it is a Repugnick, or a Democrat in charge.

Threats only work if you work to counter the threat. Telling the elderly that the Repugniks want to eliminate Social Security is a way to get them to vote for you. If you eliminate it instead, that threat is also eliminated. If you tell the Unions that the Repugniks want to destroy them, and instead you stand idle while they are destroyed, you have lost the threat.

In the past, Democrats used to fight FOR the things that the Repugniks wanted to destroy. Now we offer our core principals up on a silver platter for the Repugniks to feast upon. The threat of the Repugnik desire is losing it's effectiveness. Because our own party is destroying what we once fought so hard to get, and keep.

[ooglymoogly]

19. +1 and welcome!

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emilyg]

55. Exactly.

[PonyJon]

91. Vote a STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC TICKET, you will be happy. nt

[SomeGuyInEagan]

60. +1 ... nice to have you here. n/t

[SusanaMontana41]

66. Be prepared for an attack

after such a thoughtful post. Nice welcome, huh?

Well, welcome to DU, anyhew! :hi:

[DeSwiss]

86. Very well put.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

104. In 2010. the entire west went Democratic no GOP newbies to DC

and my State, Oregon, had the highest turn out for a midterm election in decades, a record breaker. So who the fuck made a mistake in 10? We all know who did not bother to vote, the Obama ardents and the 'moderate centrists'. Here, where we have liberals, we won.
Did your district elect Democrats? Your State? What sort of turn out did you achieve, which lets you preach to others? I bet you elected Republicans. Am I right?

[Lorien]

120. At this point PonyJon is just spamming

he has no answers, just a tired statement.

[tblue]

26. Might be too late.

But I'm standing with them.

[pnorman]

51. If you're going to stand on principle, then at least make some distance

between the reGomperized AFL-CIO and yourself.

Are you familiar with the ILWU and UE? Of the 9 unions that were expelled from the CIO during the post-war red-baiting days, all but 2 are gone--- raided, absorbed, or destroyed outright. Those were the remaining 2. ILWU reentered the AFL-CIO some years ago, without a single word of apology. UE still remains outside the Federation. If the AFL-CIO should ultimately implode, look to those 2 unions to form the core of a new and POWERFUL labor movement.

[Xicano]

57. "Are you familiar with the ILWU?"

I am. I have been a ILWU longshoreman (local 13) for almost 20yrs. Not sure if you're saying the ILWU is the one here who owes an apology, or it the AFL-CIO does. If you're saying the ILWU owes one, then, why should we owe an apology? Do you know the background of this expulsion? Harry Bridges the director of the CIO on the west coast during this time was attacked by the government, accusing him of being a communist and trying to prosecute him for denying he was a member of the communist party. In addition they also tried to revoke his naturalization citizenship and having him deported. Despite all their efforts they were never able to succeed.

What got Harry Bridges in hot water with the government and the CIO? When he came out in support of Henry Wallace for President, while at the same time was against the Marshall Plan. Not that he had anything against helping the needy in war torn Europe. Its just he and people like the American communist party were against the re-building up of economic empires which would one day threaten labor.

So Harry Bridges was against what he saw would pose a future threat against labor and was for a Presidential candidate who: (read excerpt)

Henry Wallace: 1948 Presidential election

Wallace left his editorship position in 1948 to make an unsuccessful run as a Progressive Party candidate in the 1948 U.S. presidential election. With Idaho Democratic U.S. Senator Glen H. Taylor as his running mate, his platform advocated friendly relations with the Soviet Union, an end to the nascent Cold War, an end to segregation, full voting rights for blacks, and universal government health insurance. His campaign was unusual for his time in that it included African American candidates campaigning alongside white candidates in the American South, and that during the campaign he refused to appear before segregated audiences or eat or stay in segregated establishments.

As a further sign of the times, he was noted by Time as ostentatiously riding through various cities and towns in the South "with his Negro secretary beside him." Many eggs and tomatoes were hurled at and struck him and his campaign members during the tour, while at the same time President Truman referred to such behavior towards Wallace as very un-American. Wallace commented that "there is a long chain that links unknown young hoodlums in North Carolina or Alabama with men in finely tailored business suits in the great financial centers of New York or Boston, men who make a dollars-&-cents profit by setting race against race in the far away South." State authorities in Virginia sidestepped enforcing its own segregation laws by declaring Wallace's gatherings as private parties.

One of the more potentially controversial supporters of the campaign, was a group called, Bachelors for Wallace. Organized by Henry Hay and others as organization of gay and bisexual men who supported Wallace's presidential campaign. Wallace had not made any official statements in support of gay rights and it is unclear how much support this group gave to the campaign. Yet, in the tenor of the times, such an organization would have been highly controversial. The fact that group generated almost no notice by the press or even the campaign itself, may be because of other controversies facing the campaign.

The "Dear Guru" letters reappeared now and were published, seriously hampering his campaign. Even more damage was done to Wallace's campaign when several prominent journalists, including H.L. Mencken and Dorothy Thompson, publicly charged that Wallace and the Progressives were under the covert control of Communists. Wallace was endorsed by the Communist Party (USA), and his subsequent refusal to publicly disavow any Communist support cost him the backing of many anti-Communist liberals and socialists, such as Norman Thomas. Christopher Andrew, a University of Cambridge historian working with evidence in the famed Mitrokhin Archive, has stated publicly that he believed Wallace was a confirmed KGB agent, though evidence for this was never produced. Students in Eastern Europe demonstrated in support of Wallace, chanting "long live Wallace, death to Truman."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Wallace#The_1948_Presidential_election

And for this Harry Bridges was labeled a communist and expelled from the CIO. Harry Bridges stood up for what he felt was best for labor, even if it was unpopular in the halls of governments or other bureaucrats. He did his job fighting for labor and he did it well IMO.

[pnorman]

63. I may have worded that clumsily!

I should have said that ILWU reentered the AFL-CIO, with head held high. AFAIK, there were "groveling" conditions demanded, nor would ANY have been offered by ILWU.

I'm fairly familiar with ILWU, as I've been going to sea from the 40s until I retired about a decade ago. I started with the SUP, and ended up in the MEBA. For several years, I was MEBA delegate to the King County Labor Council (Seattle) as well as to Jobs With Justice. There I met many officials and/or activists from ILWU and IBU. I was also with the Pacific Northwest Labor History association for a few years, and met many from the Harry Bridges Institute there.

So are you familiar with UE?

[pnorman]

76. "...there were "groveling" conditions demanded..."

That should have read: "no groveling conditions demanded"

[Xicano]

103. Sounds good brother pnorman.

Sorry for the delay in responding. I had gone out to Hollywood with friends from work. :)

Anyway, I am familiar with IBU. We have given them temp casual cards on a couple of occasions to give them work to help them out during their labor disputes. As for the UE? Well, I can't say I have personal experience with UE. But of course being a labor union I have respect for that. But not just that, I am also familiar with these films put out by the UE. I have enjoyed watching them and striking how they are still relevant today as they were back then. UE seems to have a rich history of fighting for labor. I have a lot of respect for that.

Here's the two films I refer to. These are excellent films and I would recommend them to anyone.


The Great Swindle Part 1

The Great Swindle Part 2



Deadline For Action Part 1

Deadline For Action Part 2

[pnorman]

155. Thanks for those UE links. I'll check them out!

Are you familiar with: "Reds Or Rackets"? It compares ILWU to the ILA, and is on the ILWU Disapatcher Book List. Here it is on-line and complete:

http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6d5nb46p;brand=eschol

[Sarah Ibarruri]

67. It would be nice to have a Democratic candidate we could vote for

So we wouldn't have to repeat these few years of watching constant kowtowing to the Repukes.

[coalition_unwilling]

81. I hope Trumka and Hoffa put together a Labor Party that will

compete aggressively for the working class vote, leaving Repukes and Dems to fight over the right wing crumbs.

[PonyJon]

88. Vote a STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC BALLOT - give Obama a real majority to work with.

I'm convinced the President will do the right thing by unions and progressives when we the voters do the right thing. If the 2010 election had followed through on the 2008 Democratic landslide The President would not have to "walk on eggs" with a republiCON congress. Don't make the same mistake twice, elect people that care about people - VOTE A STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC BALLOT - you will be happy.

[AllyCat]

99. He HAD a Dem majority in BOTH houses after 2008. And look what he did!

He was walking on eggs even then...part of the reason, I believe, the Cons took a slight majority in one house that allows them free rein to determine everything. Why? Because this President won't fight. He gives them EVERYTHING they freakin' want and then some. He doesn't have to walk on eggs NOW. We need someone to fight for us and the American people would vote for him if he did it.

I will elect people that care about people...and that means I won't be voting for Obama or the other Republicans on the ticket.

[lonestarnot]

102. Blue dog assholes.

[Lorien]

121. Excuses for lack of leadership. nt

[lonestarnot]

159. Bullshit, pugs destroying the fucking country with all the dough they've hoarded. Won't even spend

for a yacht.

[Doctor_J]

151. There is no concevable way he will have bigger majorities than he had 2009-2010

Your post is absurd.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

158. why is it that while bush was president the blue dogs were enemies

basically republicans in democratic clothing according to a lot of people on DU

Yet once we get a democratic president the people here on DU seems to think that the blue dogs would instantly starts voting for properly democratic plans?

If they were more or less republicans during the bush years they should still be considered as such now in my opinions since they haven't changed one iota, thats why Obama never had any real majority even if there were roughly the correct number of dems for it to be called such.

Whats really needed in my opinion is for the left to take one page from the right(as much as I hate to say it). The exact page being to get a whole lot more involved in local races no matter how small, be it for mayor, councilman, dog catcher or garbage director since those you elect and work with then are the ones likely to rise to prominence later and help make the local area more blue. I would obviously advice trying for as liberal/progressive as possible people as blue dogs are for the most part unreliable.

As for those complaining about Obama supporting more conservative people then the liberals you want elected for congress, well as long as they are incumbents thats more or less what tradition as its one of the few ways to have em listen(atleast a bit) to the president(However if a liberal/progressive were to be an incumbent they would get the same support from whoever is the president so the key is getting them elected)

[Doctor_J]

160. This changes nothing about my post

If the Dems cannot get anything done with the majorities we had in 2009-2010, then the party is finished.

Your 4th graph is also bizarre

Whats really needed in my opinion is for the left to take one page from the right(as much as I hate to say it). The exact page being to get a whole lot more involved in local races no matter how small, be it for mayor, councilman, dog catcher or garbage director since those you elect and work with then are the ones likely to rise to prominence later and help make the local area more blue. I would obviously advice trying for as liberal/progressive as possible people as blue dogs are for the most part unreliable.

The Repukes haven't taken over by organizing at the local level. They've taken over by completely dominating the mass media.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

161. they have been doing both, atleast thats how it seems like to me from an outsiders view. n/t

[AllyCat]

98. That's right, either lose a lot or lose a lot more! By all means, labor (and workers) should

enjoy the current screwing they are getting by the Obama Admin because anything else would just be worse! Hope everyone is having fun and asking for more!!

[danbeee46]

130. Too True

Unfortunately, this will turn out to be another "vote for the lesser evil" election. If the GOP wins the presidency, working families and labor will be further decimated. In addition, over the next four years there will probably be at least one Supreme Court vacancy. I would prefer that Obama select the next judge rather than any of those theocrat/corporatist nuts on the other side.

[alp227]

21. so what happened with the unions in all the elections of the 80s, 2000, and 2004? n/t

[ixion]

4. The DLC-Third-Way ass clowns have thrown unions under the bus

so it only makes sense they'd lose support from them.

[No Elephants]

5. Obama got too big for his comfortable shoes.

Or thought he did.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AllyCat]

101. No Elephants and I don't see eye to eye on a few things, but NE is certainly NO TROLL

But YOU might be.

[Muskypundit]

6. ... Ok. Who are the unions going to vote for?

[sabrina 1]

8. They have stated they will not be donating their millions of dollars

to the Dem Party as they have done always in the past. Instead, they will use it to back Union-friendly candidates of THEIR choice from now on.

The AFL-CIO, the Firemen's Union and the Teachers Union are all considering choosing their own candidates now. That is a huge loss of money for the Dem Party, tens of millions of dollars, but I hope the Unions stick with this plan. This is what ordinary people are going to be doing also.

When you trash your supporters, this is what happens. The current iteration of the Dem Party is for Corporate America. Corporate America hates Unions.

I'm hoping this new strategy by the Unions will help US to get more Progressive, Labor-friendly members of Congress. Rather than the Party-backed DLC/Third Wayers we've been getting over the past number of years.

[davidwparker]

31. +1

ActBlue and direct donations to a candidate's website.

[lunasun]

64. hoping this new strategy by the Unions will help US to get more Progressive

I do too Shame what has happened - during '08 so much of the Obama campaign literature buttons stickers etc. were financed by the unions around here. They had the logo on the bottom so you knew it was from the union if you read the small print but was all campaign stuff for Obama.....
Ido not blame them now - mucho cash invested, tons of time, people power and union halls' space used and for what -no return on any of it.
How can they collectively take the money from workers anymore and use it for someone running or a particular party who isn't really showing much support for the union worker?
They have to answer to their members on how that money is being used esp. when no logical reason to support is there anymore.
DLC played hardball thinking where else are these folks going???? Back home and to local candidates not necessarily the DLC backed ones either is where the $$ goes now.

[frazzled]

9. Well, the teamsters went all out for Reagan

Let's see if they think President Perry or Romney will sit down to tea with them.

I'm pro-Union, but this is bullshit.

[Luminous Animal]

20. The corrupt leadership supported Reagan but the rank & file supported Carter.

[frazzled]

24. So are you saying it doesn't matter who a union endorses...

and donates to and works for?

If that's the case, then this entire discussion is moot, isn't it.

[No Elephants]

29. It's not either - or. Union endorsement still carries weight, but is not dispositive.

When Democrats really supported labor, there was no question who working people voted for, for Congress, anyway.

[PonyJon]

93. Vote a STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC TICKET, you will be happy. nt

[Snotcicles]

44. +1

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/12/myth_of_the_reagan_union_vote/

[Omaha Steve]

39. Reagan was the President of SAG

PATCO supported him and a year later he destroyed them.

[NBachers]

72. Reagan snitched on the rank and file to the FBI while he was president of the SAG

J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets
By Curt Gentry

http://books.google.com/books?id=Tu86exHKPvMC&pg=PA850&lpg=PA850&dq=curt+gentry+j+edgar+hoover&source=bl&ots=zcpLUWGMI8&sig=9iXnPMSqxIFPEbAD5cfqXRuGpvg&hl=en&ei=0ytkTpjzCqjniALIo42pCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Reagan&f=false

and Time Magazine:

Hollywood: Unmasking Informant T-10
Monday, Sept. 09, 1985


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959749,00.html#ixzz1X2VwmCSl

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959749,00.html

[Snotcicles]

42. Delete. nt

[Tesha]

46. No, it's not "bullshit"; it's "strategy". Democrats could learn something from this. (NT)

[No Elephants]

15. Unions don't vote. Their members do. And quite a few public union members, esp. police and

firefighters, vote Republican.

[Little Star]

36. Quite a few is a overstatement. Believe me, public union members

know which side their bread is buttered on.

[bvar22]

123. In large Unions, when someone is elevated to the Leadership,

they sometimes get a swelled head.
As they trade in their coveralls for suits, their EGO get puffed up.
They move to that new house in the Gated Community, start going to Night Clubs instead of Bars,
and completely forget where they came from.
They suddenly begin to see management's side of things, like kickbacks, payoffs, and that new boat.

Management Corrupts.
Absolute Management corrupts absolutely.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[INdemo]

83. That is just not true..Show me the facts...I can show you voting results from

previous elections to disprove your statement

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SavWriter]

97. That's because the leadership

Fails to make the case that voting Democratic is in their best interest. You have to explain to each group what the Democratic Party can and will do for them. Repugniks appeal to the lesser desires of men. Individual wealth, racism, sexism, and hatred of all things.

Democrats have traditionally stood for common good, common goals, and co-operative gains. We fight for the little guy, the ideas of clean water, and air. We have to explain how we have done those things, and how we will continue doing those things. The what have you done for me lately syndrome.

We have to explain to the union members how voting for us is in their benefit, not just the benefit of the Union leadership. We have to show them how our clean water and clean air proposals will affect their families. We have to show them how our end of the endless wars will save their children from death or maiming in a far away land in the pursuit of corporate profits.

The next time you're in town, sit down next to someone, and ask them some questions. Don't try and trap them, just talk to them. Just talk to them and LISTEN to them. When I've done this, I've found that their concerns are pretty much the same as mine. Once you have that connection, that link of common concern, then take time to bring them around. Educate them.

The biggest obstacle to these efforts of continuing education is that the administration makes a liar out of me every chance they can. I tell people that President Obama and the Democrats will fight to the death to save Social Security. President Obama throws it out with the bathwater. We tell people that we care about the working man. Sure, until the working man needs us, then we sell him out so the President doesn't get sullied by taking a position contrary to the Repugnance.

I wish I had one thing, one position, one principal that I could hang my hat on. One thing that I could claim the Democrats will never do. Because so far as I can tell, the elected Democrats have absolutely nothing they won't do to appeal to the damned hard core Repugnik voters who will never vote for a black man if their lives depended on it.

[WinkyDink]

106. Well, then "quite a few" are quite ignorant and stupid.

[Sherman A1]

23. They may simply not vote

If you are going to get screwed by those purporting to be your friends then why bother. You are screwed either way it's just a matter of how soon and how much.

[hay rick]

28. Not Obama. Next softball.

[Little Star]

34. The issue is where will their time& money go. They'll vote..

Democratic like the rest of us because there is no where else to go right now. They will be spending time and money on labor friendly candidates not corporate friendly ones from now on is the point. Hopefully the Dems wake up and start to support labor again because if they don't eventually labor might start supporting third party. Wake the hell up Dems!!!!

[AverageJoe90]

52. Problem is anybody with any real knowledge understands what will really happen......

if a 3rd Party candidate is able to split the Presidential vote. It wouldn't be good; chances are, the Repubs might actually win in 2012. So we can't risk that, nor should we even THINK of doing so, no matter who's running on the Dem side.
Although, LOCAL elections on the other hand, may not be such a bad idea at all, TBH. After all, we DO have Sanders on our side, right? =)

[Bluenorthwest]

115. No one but you is talking Thrid Party candidacy. So why are you?

The ONLY 3d Party Candidate to be promoted on DU was the Recent Republican 'moderate centrist' candidate, Charlie Crist, who was promoted here long and hard firs to undermine then to defeat the actual Democratic candidate, Kendrick Meek.
My local and State Democrats are all great. They do not need to be challenged at all. So we will not be doing so.
Why are you raving about 3d Party Candidates? That is not what the Unions are talking about. You are but they aren't.

[Tesha]

45. Ultimately? Politicians who wil *ACTUALLY SUPPORT* labor.

That means some Congressional reps, some Senators,
lots of folks at the state level. And over time,
Democrats will either start supporting Labor or
lose Labor's votes.

Meanwhile, if *NEITHER* Party's Presidential candidate
supports Labor, why would they care which one wins? The
choice in that race is simply just a choice between "slow
death" versus "fast death", but either choice still leads
to the same outcome: death.

Tesha

[SomeGuyInEagan]

61. Maybe nobody. Which is also a problem.

When faced with the choice of the lesser of two evils, many will simply say, "Fuck it, I'm staying home."

Even more important is the organization and money the unions provide. Union members drive a lot of people to the polls who otherwise can't get there to vote. Union members do a lot of door knocking. Union members to a lot of phone banking. Union members take it upon themselves to walk the walk and talk the talk in public when it is the unpopular thing to do, showing up to call politicians on the carpet and openly lend support to people in other groups who feel alone and isolated.

That is the passion union members bring.

[INdemo]

82. they will vote for Congressmen etc but they will not support Obama

and no they will not vote for a Republican..they just more or less sit out the Presidential election part

[bluestate10]

137. If Unions direct their efforts locally and get out their vote and democratic leaning votes.

That will go a long way toward delivering a sound democratic Congress, or at least toward prevent a republican complete takeover of Congress. Unions have to be more effective than they were in Wisconsin, in Arkansas during the 2010 midterms and in New Jersey during the 2009 governor's race. I think that unions need to dump all of the old democratic "consultants" and bring in young, fresh thinking blood. After having watched them go about their work, I think Unions would be well served to bring to the forefront people like the clear thinking and speaking, tough young woman that is running the recall effort for the union busting bill in Ohio, and bring in a tech savvy person like Sydney Ashebury, who helped run Deval Patrick's re-election campaign in Massachusetts, bringing him from 33% approval to a 6% reelection victory.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Good! They should do what they need to do to become stronger in order to reach their goal!

MEANWHILE.....

Labor Board Eases Path To Unions For Health Care Workers
08/30/11
WASHINGTON -- With the departure of the chairwoman of the National Labor Relations Board this past weekend, the board has been issuing a slew of last-minute rulings destined to please labor groups while irritating business interests and anti-union Republicans. Among the latest: a ruling made public on Tuesday that overturns a Bush-era decision and will likely make it easier for health care workers to unionize.

In the case, known as Specialty Healthcare, the board ruled that a group of nursing assistants at a facility in Mobile, Ala., could form their own bargaining unit without other types of nursing home staff, from maintenance workers to dietary aides. It's a decision that could greatly simplify the unionization process and, as HuffPost has previously reported, could have a huge impact on the growing and largely non-unionized nursing home industry.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/30/labor-board-unions-health-care-workers_n_942485.html


NLRB Proposes Removing ‘Unnecessary Barriers’ to Union Votes
06/22/11
Companies would have less time and opportunity to block unions under a proposed U.S. rule that would speed voting in labor elections.

The proposed rule issued today by the National Labor Relations Board, an agency that investigates unfair labor practices, would bring changes sought by unions, such as faster hearing deadlines and streamlined procedures.

The push for quicker elections is a victory for unions after defeats at the hands of Republican governors seeking to curb public-employee unions. It’s also a sign of the NLRB’s pro- labor bent since President Barack Obama’s appointees have become a majority, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
http://www.treasuryandrisk.com/2011/06/22/nlrb-proposes-removing-unnecessary-barriers-to-uni


How the Obama administration is Using Executive Power to Support Union Goals:What The NLRB’s Recent Complaint Reveals
04/25/11
http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2011/04/25/how-the-obama-administration-is-using-executive-power-to-support-union-goalswhat-the-nlrbs-recent-complaint-reveals/?singlepage=true



Screeners Under Obama May Give Federal Unions Biggest Vote Win in Years
03/09/11
A collective-bargaining vote by airport security workers that starts today may give federal employee groups their biggest victory in years, even as public workers in some states struggle to keep their union status.

The country’s two largest federal-employee unions are competing to represent the 44,000 screeners who can cast their ballots through April 19. The effort, which Senate Republicans failed to stop last month, may raise Transportation Security Administration costs if workers push through changes such as increased staffing.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-09/screeners-under-obama-may-give-federal-unions-main-win-in-years.html

Obama Gives Unions A Big Victory In Unionizing Air Travel Workers
05/11/10
WASHINGTON (AP) — Labor unions will have an easier time organizing workers at airline and railroad companies after the Obama administration on Monday changed a 76-year-old rule on union elections.

The change is a victory for unions that have struggled to reverse years of decline in membership. And it’s the most significant initiative so far in a string of White House moves intended to help organized labor.
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obama-gives-unions-a-big-victory-in-unionizing-air-travel-workers/


WHILE THE OPPOSITION DOES ITS THING!

Bill Introduced to Reverse President Obama's Executive Order on Project Labor Agreements
http://www.laborrelationstoday.com/2011/02/articles/executive-orders/bill-introduced-to-reverse-president-obamas-executive-order-on-project-labor-agreements/

----------------------------
What I’d like folks to envision in the meantime is what would happen if progressives woke up the morning of November 7th, and reality hit that the President-elect is not Barack Obama?

Sure, some on the Left would feel vindicated to witness Barack Obama defeated, believing that they had won the battle of “principles” they’d waged for four years to show President Obama their disappointment in him. They would inevitably blame him for their choice not to donate, not to work, and/or simply not to have voted.
<>
How will you feel when the new President nominates partisan cabinet members like Phil Gramm for Treasury, Jeb Bush for the Justice Department, John Kasich for the Office of Management and Budget, Scott Walker for Labor Secretary, Paul Ryan for Health and Human Services, Rudy Giuliani as Secretary of State, John McCain as Secretary of Defense, and Newt Gingrich as UN Ambassador? Sure, it may not be those particular ideologues in those exact positions; in fact, it could be worse still. Keep that in mind.

How will you feel when the new President gets a chance to replace Justice Kennedy, or worse yet, Justices Breyer and Ginsberg? What about all of the other judicial nominees that the new President will get to choose?

How will you feel when the new President decides to nominate folks over at the FCC who would vote against Net Neutrality? How mad would you be if the Internet became less of a factor for free speech, and more of a factor for message manipulation and propaganda?
<>
As importantly, how will you feel that you didn’t do everything possible to assist in the 2012 re-election campaign because you rationalized that there was nothing good you could say about President Barack Obama, or you conveniently convinced yourself that someone else would handle your share (or so you assumed)? How will you justify protest then, or even be angry knowing that you always had a choice and yet you chose to do less than you could do?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=762403&mesg_id=762728

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[harun]

40. +1, one that accepts no Corporate $$$

[wurzel]

14. Have the Dems passed any legislation that help unions?

They had all three branches at one time. What did they do with all that power to help unions?

[No Elephants]

16. Both houses of Congress = only one branch. We did not have the third branch, the SCOTUS.

[TBF]

111. Lazy. While true that we didn't have the SCOTUS, it takes years for

legislation to make it there, if it ever does. Lazy answer and one that ignores the question of why Obama didn't do anything when he had the chance. Answer - he took on health care before jobs, and spent his time smoozing the pharma and health care companies.

[bluestate10]

138. It does not take years. Citizen's United made it to the US Supreme Court in less than a year.

The next President and Congress will appoint a Supreme Court that will determine where the country heads for the next twenty years. The question that people of your ilk must answer. The short term and long term action from faithful democrats must be to retain control of the White House and Congress for as long as possible to clear the High Court of conservative obstructionists and create an environment where jurists that the two Bushes put on lower benches either retire of die off and are replaced by moderate or progressive jurists.

[russspeakeasy]

17. You'll have to admit; The Huffington Post is a real

:evilgrin: bunch of sharpies...
What is the date of the story 2009 ?

[GreenStormCloud]

30. Date of the story is 9/4/11.

If you would read the story you would see that it talks about stuff that has happened this year.

[russspeakeasy]

33. O.K. just for you greenstormcloud

:sarcasm:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. Money shot:

"Obama campaigned big, but he's governing small...*"



*Insert proper amount of incredulity for HuffPo...your mileage may vary

[davidwparker]

27. Form a Labor Party. Unions would be able to organize a

50-state ballot access. Going forward, the name of the party makes it clear it is for the working class.

Marketing, baby. Marketing.

[Little Star]

37. That might be the only chance we commoners have.

[Vidar]

38. You have my vote.

[harun]

41. Hope they don't delete this thread as well, but just say'n I agree.

[d_b]

50. +zillion

[patrice]

129. + Instant Run-off Voting. nt

[madrchsod]

35. the only win for the workers was the appointing two dems to the labor board

their rulings were great victories for the workers in america. the stimulus helped but it was`t enough and he did`t put in usa content rules.

[Taverner]

43. This is a surprise?

The AFL-CIO abandoned them MONTHS AGO

You'd think they'd catch a clue...

[DirtyDawg]

47. Keith Olbermann is right...

...Obama is acting as if his campaign theme has already been determined...and it's 'So, who you gonna vote for? Rick Perry?'

[Mosaic]

48. Be wary of Huffington Post political "news"

They are firmly in the establishment category now. They are not a Progressive site, they in fact slant toward teabaggers.

[CakeGrrl]

53. HuffPo has pretty much gone the Carny Barker route

complete with screaming tabloid-style headlines and a massive Freeper/Teabagger poster infestation.

[John Agar]

80. This is not a Huffpo piece. It's from the AP...

They just linked to it.

Reporting seems sound and includes named quotes from labor leaders.

You may not want to hear this information, but the feeling of betrayal is real and is out there, whether you think it is legitimate or not.

[sellitman]

49. Without Unions & the Left Obama looses.

He better start paying attention to those who put him in office. It may be too late already. I can see voter apathy rearing its ugly head and a Perry nightmare ensuing.

[liberal N proud]

54. Looking more and more like we will be under another GOP regime come 2013

[INdemo]

84. It is early ..we need to draft a challenger and primary Obama

but as early as it is and as fast as Obama is losing support he could and should just announce he wont be running for a second term and we can then take our party back.

[oldbanjo]

56. Unions will support Obama or become extinct.

[Doctor_J]

79. The Dem Party will support unions or become extinct

[ThomWV]

108. How so? If the unions don't waste their resources on Obama they will remain stronger.

[bluestate10]

142. Not so. If a republican wins the Presidency and a republican Congress takes over.

Union busting legislation will be nationalized. That chance will eliminate unions, or at the least, drain union finances by forcing unions to fight a 50 state battle for survivor. Post 2013 battles will weaken unions for 2014 and 2016 elections, making the votes of weaker democratic leaning constituencies even more critical if democrats hope to roll back republican gains.

[dana_b]

139. I would reverse the order of the subjects n/t

[bluestate10]

141. Support Obama and work their asses off to get a strong democratic Congress.

If they fail at one, they MUST have success with the other. A republican Congress and President will create more of the very issues that the country is struggling to deal with now. I can't see how a person that calls themselves progressive don't see the real danger of the positions that many of them are yelling to anyone that will listen.

[4dsc]

58. Big shock here......... NOT!

[SoapBox]

59. K & R

[existentialist]

62. We need to support true progressives.

While we should not directly oppose Obama, we need to put our active support to more progressive, including labor friendly Democrats that are running for the House and Senate, and to thereby to pressure Obama to keep his original promises to labor.

[elana i am]

65. this is anecdotal of course

but all the union members i know, half of which are retired, are a bunch of tea party repugs. damn shame.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[INdemo]

68. When a candidate running for reelection loses union support

then its time to find a new candidate..How can anyone make excuses for this guy..His reelection campaign should see the handwriting...and convince this guy to announce that he will not seek a second term..I just don't see how he gets the nomination...
Why cant this Republican just step aside..I would think this news about losing union support would be enough for the DNC to force him to announce he will not run..

[Javaman]

69. Losing? I say he lost it.

If I recall, the biggest unions already have pulled support.

[JJW]

70. Unions need to actuallly strike

protesting isn't doing squat. They have to organize and strike nation wide. They have to cost the greedy Wall Street speculators, money.

[wisteria]

71. So who are they going to support? The GOP? n/t

[Dragonfli]

77. It looks like Keith Olbermann WAS right. /nt

[dana_b]

140. amazing, isn't it? n/t

[Trajan]

78. They will support ...

staying at home on their asses and not lifting a finger to help elect the Democrats ....

Simply making yourself the least 'right wing' of two parties is hardly the path to electoral enthusiasm ....

[stillrockin]

117. so right

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

73. Oh please

We have the most pro-labor NLRB since Jimmy Carter.

Another lame anti-Obama article.

[DeSwiss]

87. Of course they have....

...they have integrity.

- It's time to start anew......

K&R

[defendandprotect]

95. What about WOMEN and ENVIRONMENTALISTS .... ?? Liberals should stick together -- !!

[CakeGrrl]

96. Tell it to Hoffa and Trumka - both on record supporting the President

Hoffa did so on CNN "State of the Union" today.

[boppers]

100. Meanwhile, back in reality...

I was going to post something similar. The bulk of the unions are behind Obama, but hey, there's always detractors making headlines for themselves. I don't forget that there were Unions who supported Reagan over Carter, and much hay was made over how Reagan was the "pro-Union Republican" because of their support.

[bluestate10]

144. Then Reagan busted those unions asses.

I think the air traffic controllers were one union that supported Reagan during his 1980 run, likely because a lot were ex military. How did that work out for air traffic controllers when they tried to strike for better working conditions and improved passenger safety? Cop and firefighter unions are examples of big republican supporting unions, I have advice for them, republican have and will be coming after public service unions even more. After republicans eviscerate teacher's unions, they will first get firefighters then cop unions and bust both of them.

[boppers]

156. PATCO didn't try to strike. They legally weren't even allowed to strike,

They were doing a "sick out" non-strike. but yes, they supported Reagan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)

[GoCubsGo]

146. They both stood on the stage with him today in Detroit, too.

[txlibdem]

105. Who else are Obama and the DLC Democratic Party going to lose???

Unions = mostly gone

The Poor = what has the administration done for them? I count most of them as gone

Homeowners = When the administration jumped through their a$$es to bail out the banks but haven't done a damn thing to help MILLIONS of real Americans who are losing their houses... I'd say that a whole lot of those votes are gone.

The Middle Class = tax breaks for the rich with zero jobs created; then more tax breaks for the rich with zero jobs created; then more tax breaks for the rich with zero jobs created. How many Middle Class voters going to realize that this administration wants to shower the rich with cash giveaways/grants/zero interest loans/special breaks (like exceptions to the HCR)/etc, etc, etc -- but not one ounce of effort (or damn little) towards helping the Middle Class. How many of those votes are gone?

Environmentalists = Let's wait to hear the Prez. try to spin his Pro-Corporate views in a way that won't turn the environmentalists off. My guess? A whole lot of votes lost.

Finally, Americans who don't want a "job" -- they want a "GOOD PAYING JOB" that they can support their family on. The Obama administration is just a continuation of the attack on the American Worker. When will a small percentage of working Democrats going to wake up and realize that a DLC Dem (or New Dem) is just a Republican in Dem's clothing.

How many of those can the Democrats afford to lose with their continued capitulation to the rich. Like Harry Reid's weekly statement "my FRIENDS on the other side of the aisle WOULDN'T LET US do this (fill in the blank) legislation." I want to puke.

[rosesaylavee]

107. I think we will need to view Huffpost links

much like any other rw online rag now that AOl has them intheir grip.

The President is speaking this weekend (today) at the AFL/CIO event in Detroit. We are a year out from the election.

It ain't over yet folks. Keep working on winning this one.

[Creideiki]

109. They don't mention that public employee unions are in a drawn-out fight

for their very survival at the Federal level. Lose that and there will be no more Democratic Party, as its purpose--funneling money up to the Wall Street Banksters will have been completed.

[Broderick]

113. They need to raise union dues

so that we can get more advertising in favor of unions, and ensure that more money can be given to campaigns that support unions. Wisconsin was just a distraction while other states did worse. Raise the dues and more money can flow to reverse the trend.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

124. workers need educating about the importance of unions

more activists needed

[Broderick]

125. Sometimes that costs money and that is why I propose

Unions raising union dues to get the money flowing. Education is also very important.

[bluestate10]

145. The problem is that most private employees with the good benefits.

Don't realize that Union actions over many decades are why those benefits exist. As Unions have weakened, activity like off-shoring of non-union jobs has accelerated. If private unions are killed off, expect the USA economy to take on second world status as more jobs are moved to low wage countries. The trend will continue until companies no longer can sell products in the USA because average americans won't have the money to buy those products. Activists can't just go about protesting in the streets, activists must get themselves invited into meetings and homes of non-union private sector workers and present those workers with clear, no bullshit facts about why having Unions are in THEIR own best interests.

[Honeycombe8]

127. With good reason. How disappointing that Obama hasn't stepped up to the plate...

on this group of his supporters.

It's not that he hasn't done anything specifically, I think. It's that he hasn't used his bully pulpit to stand up for the average working Joe.

[bvar22]

128. After what the White House did in the Arkansas Democratic Primary 2010,

I'm surprised that any Union would still talk to the President.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[WillyT]

131. Yep... K & R !!!

:kick:

[peace_on_earth]

133. AWESOME new protest song - pro-union

My friend's brother just created a fantastic protest song - I urge you all to check it out, and spread it far and wide:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDp2KLhshMw

Here is some background on the musicians:

Terry Sherven lives in Post Falls, Idaho. He's married, and has two grown married children. He's a third generation conscientious objector, and his son is the fourth generation.

Terry had a 29 year career as a public school educator, retiring eight years ago as a high school principal.

He's lived and played music professionally in Alaska, Oaxaca, Mexico, Ireland, Spain, Baja California, and the Olympic Peninsula, Washington State.

The musicians on the video are Terry's son Josh on djembe, and Mike Elliot on lead guitar.

Mike was a full time touring pro for more than twenty years, backing up such musicians as Tina Turner, Bette Midler, Bonnie Bramlett, Johnnie Winter, and Bo Diddley.

Also: If someone could repost this in a new thread I would really appreciate it! (I don't have enough DU seniority.)

[madamesilverspurs]

147. That must have been

a Trumka statue standing there with Obama in Detroit, eh?

[MH1]

153. Of course it was !! (so ironic ...

to see this at the top of the 'Greatest' page while Big Labor is there on TV cheering the Prez at a huge rally. :)

[Number23]

157. It's actually hilarious

This place has been funny like that for a while now.

[defendandprotect]

152. Justified, needless to say -- where's their political Plan B?