FIVE REASONS WHY THE AFSCME AND SEIU SHOULD HAVE ENDORSED SANDERS OVER CLINTON link added
Last edited Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:07 AM - Edit history (1)
RED STEWART Oct 24, 2015
The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and Service Employees International Union (SEIU), two of the largest trade unions for public employees in the United States, endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Partys nomination. Having been a major proprietor for labor rights since the early 1900s, we look at this as a mistake given not only some of Hillarys questionable decisions regarding workers, but also fellow candidate Bernie Sanderss near-flawless record on the matter.
Here are our five biggest reasons for why we believe the AFSCME made a major error in their decision:
1. Shes not consistent on Free Trade, Sanders Is
Because Bill Clinton balanced the federal budget and left the government with a surplus, many liberals tend to overlook his terrible policies regarding free trade. His globalization initiatives failed, with NAFTA in particular having many horrible consequences. As Jeff Faux, founder of the Economic Policy Institute think tank put it:
It caused the permanent loss of 700,000 manufacturing jobs in industrial states such as California, Texas and Michigan. It gave corporate managers an excuse to cut wages and benefits, threatening otherwise to move to Mexico. Selling U.S. farm products in Mexico dislocated millions of Mexican workers and their families, which was a major cause in the dramatic increase in undocumented workers flowing into the U.S. labor market.
FULL story at link.
Published on Jun 12, 2015
This is a short video of U.S. Representative from Vermont, Bernie Sanders speaking out against fast track authority for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA for short, an International Trade Agreement).
NAFTA has been widely seen as harmful to workers and helped to contribute to outsourcing.
Catchy bumper sticker...
Last edited Fri Dec 4, 2015, 01:08 PM - Edit history (1)
Why were the leaders the union members elected fine and dandy right up to the point when they endorsed Hillary and now all of a sudden they are corrupt and no good?
I tell you what, Bernie and his backers must be making enemies in the labor movement.
This crap is just stupid as hell.
Many, if not most, of the actual members of those two unions are actively working and volunteering for Bernie and plan to vote for him despite who their leadership endorsed.
Look at it this way, when some national unions endorsed Bernie, the membership seemed satisfied - at least enough not to take to social media denouncing leadership's decision, but when a couple or three big unions endorsed Clinton, several members reached out to both the unions' social media accounts and to traditional media to express their dissatisfaction with that choice.
It seems that is the actual membership who started the questioning of leadership's decisions - not Bernie Backers. We only pointed it out.
Sure, you can dismiss it as anecdotal, but we all know it happened.
...but I guess a conspiracy theory works better.
Why do you suppose they didn't ask me? http://www.afscme.org/members/afscme-people
Here is a video of the poll results.
Takes all the warm and fuzzy out of the legitimacy of the data.
e.g. a Union member. We're not talking about financial supporters.
You have to be an AFSCME member to donate to the PAC: http://www.afscme.org/members/afscme-people
Contributions or gifts to AFSCME PEOPLE are not deductible for federal income tax purposes. All contributions to AFSCME PEOPLE are voluntary and will be used for political purposes. Contributions are not a condition of membership or employment and refusal to contribute is free of reprisal. In accordance with federal law, AFSCME PEOPLE accepts contributions only from AFSCME members, executive and administrative personnel, and their families. Contributions from other persons will be returned.
I also used to donate to AFSCME Heros. That went out the window after this too.
About what the actual results of those polls of union membership were, only that they were conducted. Leadership can poll a million times, but it wouldn't make a bit of difference if the LEADERSHIP already had its mind made up who the union would endorse.
The company I work for does employee surveys all the time to make it look like we actually have a say, but at the end of the day, management does what it wants no matter what the surveys said.
You had to attend the union meetings to have any input. Hardly anyone attends the meetings so they wouldn't be asked.
It's not like they pull your chain and ask you who you support.
A poll doesn't include all members (only a sampling), and favorability isn't a net sum between all candidates. Just because Hillary had a 75% favorability doesn't mean Bernie had 25%. He could easily have had a comparable favorability (we don't know because the poll wasn't released). Union members tend to have favorable views of Democrats in general, so Hillary having a high favorability isn't surprising. Without seeing how it compares to the other candidates it's not very telling.
Also the poll that mentions the 75% was taken no later than September (according to this politico story). The endorsement came two months later in November. There's no telling how the polls could have changed in that time since Bernie made substantial ground in name recognition and general polling over that period (that's assuming their leadership even bothered re-polling before they made the endorsement).
I'd LOVE to See The Polling Numbers Of ALL Unions..
Ain't holding my breathe.
just like Hillary is 'currently' against the TPP and is 'at this moment' for a 'reasonable' raise in the minimum wage.
It's so nice that America has decided to adopt Soviet style policits, where the party tells the voters who they can chose.
I have known for a long time that there is a big disconnect at the leadership level. Either all the best intentions that someone may have had gets replaced by more selfish interests; or they were pretenders from the beginning.
Looking back, the best thing that could happen with all these endorsements made by the leadership of organizations, is to cut out the middleman and make your vote your own.
It's AFSCME president Lee Saunders gets message from rank & file re: Bernie Sanders, NOT Hillary Clinton
of the post is to not move on. It is to understand how an endorsement that makes no sense came to be by breaking down why it makes no sense. Now if you can address the concerns, by all means we'll get over it. You sound like Scalia after Bush v. Gore: "get over it". Really?
To be sexist. She is completely capable of having her own thoughts and opinions. All women are, even if sexists think differently.
There are many, many reasons unions are endorsing Hillary over Bernie. And rightfully so.
- She has a much better chance of winning the nomination. Unions back winners.
- She is much more qualified than Bernie by all measures
- She has been very effective at fighting back against the GOP. Bernie hasn't.
- She is a coalition builder whereas Bernie has not demonstrated that talent
- She will have much more political power than Bernie as President due to the above.
You can criticize unions for their endorsements all you want. But they are some of the most politically savvy actors in this country. They are not stupid.
If you think they are stupid I have to conclude you've not worked with unions and leadership on political activities.
It just seems to me you don't have any experience in that regard. If you did you would know they are not stupid by any means.
Most unions balked at that. So she flip flopped and said after she saw it it wasn't the gold standard. The POTUS Obama corrected her and said she hasn't seen it yet. Foot in mouth.
Hillary Clinton flip-flops on Trans-Pacific Partnership: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/
Snip: "As of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it," she said in an Oct. 8 interview with PBS Newshours Judy Woodruff, adding, "I dont believe its going to meet the high bar I have set."
This stance has some people scratching their heads, because she praised the negotiations while serving as secretary of state.
We thought we should take a look back and see how Clintons position on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has evolved. She has addressed the trade deal on a number of occasions since official negotiations started in 2010 (CNN counted at least 45 comments), so well note her most representative remarks in chronological order.
Snip:Its up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but we rate Clintons reversal as a Full Flop.
The for other four points have nothing to do with Bill. Please comment on those too.
And last what a nice opinion you have of young progressives in the USA.
... is that none of you have read her book. It was published a year and a half ago, and written at least 2 years ago. And she exhibits plenty of skepticism about the TPP there. Yes, TWO years ago.
As SOS she was cheerleading for her hopes for it, even while she was trying to assist the US Trade rep in getting things like the right of workers in signatory countries to organize into unions, and prohibitions against currency manipulation included in the agreement. Those two items alone would have made a world of difference for workers in every country signing on to it.
The right to unionize in Asian markets would have done more to level the playing field than any other trade agreement in the world between any country. Indeed it would have set the gold standard and precedent for existing and new trade agreements.
Currency manipulation hurts US workers tremendously because it makes imported goods costs artificially low and therefore US products less competitive.
When neither of those things (and others) made it in to the final agreement she stated she did not support it. And that is exactly what she said in her book written 2 years ago.
AND she voted against CAFTA while in the senate. So, given that a) she stated 2 years ago what she needed to see to support the final product, and b) she has a history of voting against trade bills, I don't think you can credibly claim she ended up not supporting it for reasons of political expediency.
At the time she flipped according to Obama she hadn't even seen it yet? It was however after several unions said if your not against it... no endorsement.
But it wouldn't surprise me if she knew enough to know her key criteria weren't in it. I don't know how much you hate her, so maybe you have no interest, but her last book was very good, I thought. Of course books on politics and history are my favorite reading.
MR. EARNEST: Yes, I noticed that, too.
It was encouraging to see Democratic candidates putting forward their own vision and values and priorities for the country, in large part vowing to build on the important progress thats been made over the last seven years, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday at his daily press briefing.
As for Clinton opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement without having read it yet the text still hasnt been released Earnest said, Yeah, I noticed that, too.
More broadly, Earnest said we strongly disagree with Clinton and the other candidates who oppose the TPP, saying it would raise worker standards, lower taxes on exports and counter China. And he kept noting that the administration has spent five years negotiating the deal, which dates back to Clintons tenure as secretary of State.
It is difficult to find a source story for this that isn't a rightwing rag, so I included a link to the actual press conference. Seems the mainstream media again ran interference for her on this one.
To know that critical components were missing. That's not surprising at all. Nor would it be surprising if she actual had the full text prior to the official release. There is no doubt in my mind that Obama wants her to win. That's politics.
Thank you for the link though. I had not heard that, and didn't even really know what to search for to find what Steve was referring to.
Hillary was quoted she would have to see the "finished text" before making a decision on TPP. Many DUers defended her wait until it is released quote.
Bernie hit her on it hard. She flipped.
How much do you think changed after...
Clinton Had Said The Trans-Pacific Partnership "Sets The Gold Standard In Trade Agreements." "[We] need to keep upping our game both bilaterally and with partners across the region through agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP. Australia is a critical partner. This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world's total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment." (Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton, Remarks at Techport Australia , 11/15/12) http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200565.htm
1. She may win the nomination, but she's going to lose the general election. She WILL lose Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and, probably, Colorado. Without Ohio and Florida, she's done.
2. Qualifications are subjective. I don't find someone who takes advice from neocons on foreign policy all that qualified. Hillary does. Ask Robert Kagan.
I also don't find someone who listens to Wall Street all that qualified on economic policy. Wall Street's success rarely translates into success for the average working person.
3. If you consider, "adopting some of the GOP's foreign and economic policy" (see above) as "fighting back," then, yes, she's done far more of that than Bernie.
4. Coalition building is only effective if, at some point, you get what your side wants. Seems she only adopt the policies of the other side - but, then again, that may very well be what she wants.
5. I prefer the people have the political power and not one individual. This election, to her, is all about her. It's not about all of us.
I know more than a few members of these unions that are really pissed off at the endorsements
Kick and rec! Thank you OS!
They did so without consulting the rank and file membership. Whenever I go to a union meeting I see a lot of Bernie buttons and bumper stickers. I think the unions should have waited until after the primaries before sending out endorsements (to the winner). Lots of folks feel alienated and don't feel represented.
Marta and I are going to lunch, shopping, and the store. I'll be back in a few hours.
Richard Trumka has a message for state and local AFL-CIO leaders tempted to endorse Bernie Sanders: Dont.
In a memo this week to state, central and area divisions of the labor federation, and obtained by POLITICO, the AFL-CIO chief reminded the groups that its bylaws dont permit them to endorse a presidential candidate or introduce, consider, debate, or pass resolutions or statements that indicate a preference for one candidate over another. Even personal statements of candidate preference are verboten, Trumka said.
The memo comes amid signs of a growing split between national union leaders mindful of the fact that Clinton remains the undisputed favorite for the nomination and local officials and rank and file, who are increasingly drawn to the Democratic Partys growing progressive wing, for whom Sanders is the latest standard-bearer.
If they feel strongly one candidate is going to win, they don't want to antagonize them.
I remember back in 2004 or 2006, my union (United Transportation Union) endorsed Katherine Harris for Congress. Katherine Fucking Harris! And her Dem opponent was Jan Schneider, a progressive labor attorney.
I called up our state legislative guy and gave him a real ear full.
And his anti-union comments.
It just shows these endorsements are about leaders jockeying for position and favor, rather than supportive of the overall Union platforms or what the rank and file want.
But you're right...Nixon and Reagan...whew...
"Just days after members of the Professional Air Traffic Controls Organization (PATCO) went on strike, President Ronald Reagan declared the strike illegal under the Taft-Hartley act. Reagan ordered the 13,000 striking air traffic controllers to return to work within 48 hours. On August 5, 1981 Reagan fired over 11,000 workers who refused to return to work. PATCO, who supported Reagan in the 1980 election, was decertified as a union and the fired workers were banned from holding federal jobs ever again. It took the FAA close to ten years to return staffing to its normal level."
Who are strong and in a better position of winning the primaries and GE and have a record of backing ideas unions are interested in passing or enhancing.
leadership can be asked to resign and get someone that's on the worker's side.
They better hope their candidate wins. lol.
In your opinion, which supposedly outweighs the knowledge, experience and needs of unions. Hubris a little?