More On Mikey and Labor

    Last night, I weighed in on the significance of NY Mayor Mike Bloomberg's endorsement by the huge city workers local, AFSCME DC37. This morning, The New York Times runs with a front-page story main section story on the endorsement this morning, confirming the general perception that it is lights out for any of the Democrats running in the party primary. I don't know who wins the primary now but it's not worth much--other than raising ones profile and trying to run a campaign of ideas to avoid being crushed by Bloomberg.

    And they add something else I had heard recently: SEIU's 32BJ, which represents 60,000 janitors and building service workers, is likely to get on-board the Bloomberg election wagon pretty soon.

    How bad is the Democratic Party when it cannot field a candidate who can garner the endorsements of the largest unions? And, as well, how bad is the labor movement when it can't get its act together to try to speak with one voice and/or recruit and support a pro-labor candidate?

Comments

[John Q]

"And, as well, how bad is the labor movement when it can't get its act together to try to speak with one voice and/or recruit and support a pro-labor candidate?"

Sounds to me like they have. And it's Bloomberg.

[NathanHJ]

It just clears the way for more organzing and winning by the Working Families Party...

[Tasini]

As a WFP member myself, I'm all for that.

[Josh H. Pille]

Oh my-- something I disagree w/ Jonathan about? But yes, it's true.

Not that I'm a Bloomberg fan, of course. But this is really a discussion about the role of labor in politics, and vice versa. And I'm with you, JT, when you say that labor needs to stop paying so much attention to electoral politics until we build more on-the-ground power. But then you fault labor for making the "wrong" political decision. In some sense, it seems like one can't have it both ways.

There was a similar debate about labor's endorsement of Hahn in the LA mayoral race recently. Like Bloomberg, he was the less progressive candidate, and probably worse on labor issues also. But when we're as weak as we are, and someone in power does the right thing (in Bloomberg's case, this meant delivering on an AFSCME contract), there is a reasonable case that that earns labor's endorsement.

Not an airtight case, of course, but a reasonable case. It's still debatable, but most of the time I'm going to defer to the wisdom of those who made the decision. (Not that I'm necessarily going to vote that way; I'm not sure I've ever voted how my union has endorsed in any significant race.)

But I think the hope should be that 5 years from now, we'll have build enough power that we can either then become the force in the Democratic Party that we once were, or (better still) become strong enough to form the core of a new party (not to be confused, of course, with the New Party). I've heard rumblings that the SEIU disaffiliation may have an eye toward starting a new political party. Such a thing should be a long way off, I'd assume, but it's an exciting prospect.

[Tasini]

Josh, I'm crushed...if I don't have you, the site has got to be shut down!!!

If we're in the political process, then, we should try to do the smart thing. I don't disagree that we should defer to those who made the decision--but only partly. I guess my main observation is the problem--perhaps, not solvable--that unions make endorsements based on what it means strictly for their individual members--not for the labor movement as a whole.

And while I hear the point that Mikey has been far less a bastard than other Republicans, he's no friend of labor--his company is entirely non-union and I recall that they've been pretty staunchly anti-union.

[Guillermo Perez]

In a situation where there's no obvious pro-labor candidate to endorse it seems to me that the thing to do is to make no endorsement at all. Argubably that's the strategic route to take when you're a union trying to get a contract out of a local politician who is so clearly not pro-labor generally. The DC37 contract for which the union is ostensibly selling itself out undercut the other city unions struggling for a decent contract. DC37's endorsement is a classic cynical topdown move. I doubt that the majority of DC37's members are going to vote for Bloomberg in the same way that I doubt that a majority of 1199 members voted for Patacki in the governor's race after 1199 endorsed Bush's leading fundraiser in New York. These are both top-down endorsements that likely did not involve anything in the way of consultation with the rank-and-file membership. It's no wonder that so many working people tuneout electoral politics.

[Jan Cornell]

Didn't Mikey boy have a big public bru ha ha with Randi Weingarten of the teacher's union in NYC? And do they even have a contract yet? I know they can't stand each other.
He is NO friend of labor. He drags his feet on contracts, he is dismissive of unions in general and well he's a typical big business, big money REPUBLICAN. I actually can't beieve any union would endorse him.