Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Labor's Love Lost?

The past two years have not been the best for the labor movement.

In 2004, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry (D), who carried the strong backing of the AFL-CIO, came up short in his challenge to President George W. Bush. Then came reports in April 2005 that the AFL-CIO was strapped for cash and was likely to make substantial layoffs in its staff. The final blow came four months later when several large unions (most notably the Service Employees International Union) broke away from AFL-CIO and formed the Change To Win coalition.

Once the mightiest of Democratic interest groups, the AFL-CIO's role in politics appeared to be on the wane. Karen Ackerman, political director at the AFL-CIO, sees the coming 2006 election as a chance to prove that despite its struggles, labor still possesses the broadest and most dependable get out the vote apparatus in the Democratic universe and remains a major force within the party.

"We have a huge role to play," said Ackerman, adding that AFL's 2006 effort will be its largest in history. The budget for the AFL-CIO's "Labor 2006" is $40 million, which will be spent in 21 targeted states that contain approximately 12.4 million union members. (In 2004, the AFL targeted 16 states but spent upwards of $50 million.)

Most of this money will be spent in member-to-member contacts ranging from phone calls into union households to door-knocking campaigns aimed at turning out union voters. Ackerman believes the AFL-CIO is uniquely positioned to turn out its members because "no one else talks to workers at the work site."

Ackerman cites recent elections as evidence of the continuing influence of the labor movement. In 2004, turnout of AFL-CIO members far outdistanced that of registered voters in several battleground states. In Ohio, 89 percent of active AFL members voted while 71 percent of the general electorate turned out. In Florida, 71 percent of AFL voters went to the polls as compared to 54 percent of registered voters. Union members have accounted for nne of every four votes cast -- Democrat AND Republican.

Although labor is now split between the AFL-CIO and Change To Win, the two organizations have agreed to work together in 2006 to help candidates who support their quest to expand workers' rights.

But, the rift remains and -- in some ways -- the damage has already been done to the labor movement. "The labor movement spent a lot of time and energy trying to keep the labor movement together," said Ackerman. She added that "if we had a united labor movement there would be more voters in the mix that we would be talking to."

With little chance of a re-unification between the two groups, Ackerman's AFL-CIO is pressing onward. She insisted that the split "hasn't changed what we are doing"; "we are very serious about putting together in 2006 the biggest program possible," said Ackerman. "Our goal is to have a continuous year-round mobilization vehicle."

For Congressional Democrats, much depends on the efficacy of the AFL-CIO's effort. Unlike in 2004 when America Coming Together spent upwards of $200 million on a turnout effort, the AFL is by far the biggest player in the turnout game this cycle. ACT essentially dissolved after the 2004 election and many of the largest donors to it have decided to fund more long-term projects through the Democracy Alliance. Establishment Democrats (including Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) have publicly criticized the alleged lack of support (financial and otherwise) from the Democratic National Committee.

"It is a weakness that we don't have ACT," said Ackerman. Another Democratic operative with close ties to the labor movement explained that there is little question that the AFL-CIO's political program will turn out its members but that no turnout entity exists to target non-union voters who could potentially vote Democratic. "Despite the split, labor is figuring out how to do what it has always done -- and it will work out fine," said the source. "Democrats' problem in this election will not be turning out union voters -- the problem will be turning out other voters -- and that's where an ACT-like entity will be missed."

The 2006 election offers the AFl-CIO real risks and reward. Help win back the House or Senate (or both) and the organization proves its political heft heading into 2008. If, however, Democrats aren't able to capitalize on the favorable political climate to make major gains, expect a slew of stories arguing that labor's influence is ebbing.

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 22, 2006; 10:49 AM ET
Categories:  Odds and Ends  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Insider Interview: Amy Dacey
Next: Primary Preview: Alaska Governor's Race

Comments

Workers acting collectively created every decent thing that is enjoyed by middle class America, including the class itself. It was the workng class that became the middle class; and nearly every effort in Washington D.C. in the last 6 years has been to drive the middle class back into a poverty stricken, politically weakened, working class, destined to rely on their employers' benevolence rather than their own power through collective action. Damned be the politicians and social elites that purposfully silence and destroy the greatest tool of working people - collective action, better known as Organized Labor.

Posted by: G. Zane | August 23, 2006 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, an affiliate of the National Education Association is on its way to the Supreme Court for illegally spending dues on politics.

Posted by: mike | August 23, 2006 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"there is a theory out there which says we should encourage savings and investment. this tax arrangment does this."

King, dividends and earned income should be taxed at the same rates.

Posted by: Sean | August 22, 2006 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the kind words Mike,
The point you bring up about the boards of Enron and Tyco is exactly the kind of stuff I was trying to point out. In the past it was considered an honor to sit on the board of a major corporation, and you were expected to do it for practically nothing (the company would pay for your travel and give a couple grand a year for your trouble). And it was completely against the rules to own stock if you were on the board, period. That way the board members (mostly CEOs of other companies) could make unbiased decisions for the best interests of the stockholders AND the employees.

Posted by: Andy R | August 22, 2006 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Colin, I respect you nd I hear what you are saying.AndyR's long piece was exremely interesting reading. I have never heard anything remotely like it - well reasoned, informative, just plain good. I wonder how the gasbags at the Post can live with themselves when readers in informal forums publish better writing than they?

Oh well, be that as it may, Colin, if we really wanted to, we certainly could deport all of the illegals...or virtually all of them. I STILL think we ought to. And, if Andy is correct in his assessment, we really need to take a look at controlling investors and corporations, including their owners. I do know some of the more "inside" laws and exectuive orders passed by Bush and Clinton, like the one absolving boards and officers from reponsibility for the actions of corporate officers under them, was a slap at common sense. For example, the boards of Enron and Tyco, received millons of dollars in stocks and other assets and essentially turned a blind eye to the activities of the corporate officers they were supposed to be overseeing. At the very least, they ought to be sued, but are getting off scot free. Likewise, it IS true that big companies like Intel and Microsoft and IBM make liberal use of L series visa's for guest workers, essentially forcing tax payers to subsidize their workforce to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. All of this has to end and the companies need to pay their way and pay for the damage they do to our society.

Posted by: MikeB | August 22, 2006 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Mike, I hear you. What ever happen to the Jimmy Carters of the world?
Keep up the hope there are some genuine folks out there who are trying to right the ship. They are few and far between, but out there none the less.

Posted by: Andy R | August 22, 2006 3:46 PM | Report abuse

MikeB -- Again, I think you're absolutely right that the government isn't paying sufficient attention to job-related issues and the squeeze that current policies are putting on the middle class and working class in this country. However, I don't see how the actions you're advocating would actually address those problems. If you essentially roll back existing free trade agreements and institute tariffs on things like wheat, timber, and coal other countries will simply do the same thing to american products. I'm not an economist myself, but there is a great deal of consensus out there that the net result of such actions is that the US will actually LOSE if this occurrs. My preferred solution? Accept that certain types of jobs ARE NOT COMING BACK, but don't stop with that conclusion like the current administration has. Actually fund job retraining programs for adults and invest in continuing, life long worker skills programs so that people are prepared to do the jobs of tomorrow. Also, fix the healthcare mess so that businesses won't be at a competitive disadvantage if they do keep jobs in the US. Clinton talked a good game about this kind of stuff, but didn't deliver sufficiently. We should change that now.

As far as immigration goes, I have yet to see any empirical evidence suggesting that the current population of illegals is driving down wages or causing unemployment. However, if they are isn't that simply more of an argument in favor of (1) normalizing such individuals' legal status to bring them out of the shadows; and then (2) unionizing such workers, so that their wage requests are more in-line with existing US workers? Shipping everyone back simply isn't practical and businesses really DO need the workers. So lets normalize these folks' status, pass some minimum wage laws applicable to guest workers, and start talking about the real divide in this country - which is the super rich vs. everyone else not legal workers vs. illegal workers.

Posted by: Colin | August 22, 2006 3:42 PM | Report abuse

You people seem to have no inclination toward economics. there is a theory out there which says we should encourage savings and investment. this tax arrangment does this. how do you think small businesses get started? how many people do you think small businesses employ? stop chanting the same stupid old rich/poor invective and put on your thinking cap. Socialists read Marx, capitalists understand Marx.

Posted by: kingofzouk | August 22, 2006 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Andy - people wonder about things like this and wonder why I think George Bush (and his partner in drag, Hilliary Clinton)and his entire administration and the Republican Party are criminals. This isn't hyperboly, I genuinely mean they are rotten, fithy, corrupt, lock 'em up for the rest of their lives, criminals. Their tax grab for the wealthy, their tax breaks for outsourcing corporations, everything has caused so much suffering I cannot imagine how we tolerate them. The only hope we have, and that is a faint hope, is to elect clean Democrats. Dump the Cantwell's and Clinton's of the Party and elect decent people who actually believe in and will work for the Amercian people. I have not much hope that this will happen, but it is still a hope.

Posted by: MikeB | August 22, 2006 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about that oversite NE. But the same holds, why is an employee paying 25% in income tax and investor paying 15% (or 5%). Doesn't seem fair to me.

Posted by: Andy R | August 22, 2006 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter,

In other words, they want to make those illegal workers into legal ones? As I think about this prospect from a labor perspective, it's starting to make some sense. I don't necessarily agree with this but I could see how a rational person could say that giving those immigrants legal status would allow them to be regulated and thus bring wages and working conditions back up, which would improve the labor market for all American workers.

Myself, I favor a massive, nation-wide crackdown on everyone who hires illegal immigrants with prison time for corporate executives who knowingly do so on a large scale. But I could see how granting amnesty could possibly be to the benefit of current union workers rather than purely a play for a larger base of dues. Again, I'm not convinced of it but I appreciate your bringing the thing to my attention.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | August 22, 2006 2:49 PM | Report abuse

The thing most unions try to is protect workers rights rite? Now the thing they miss most often is in the organization of workers. ie: how many times do they try to organize and have competing unions trying to get the same store, hospital etc. etc.? This is probably one of the many reasons union membership has been falling for a number of years now.

Posted by: lylepink | August 22, 2006 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Jackson Landers, Sorry, but you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

As reported this month all over the media, unions are stepping into the immigration debate on the side of illegal aliens.

The second week in August the AFL-CIO signed what it calls a "historic partnership agreement" with the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, an association of 40 worker centers nationwide.

To quote: "The unions then work with and defend the NDLON centers as they seek decent labor standards and working conditions for their illegal workers...."(CNN 8/17) and "the AFL-CIO and the laborers union also intend to work toward reform that includes amnesty for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States"(Seattle Post-Intelligencer 8/11).

Jackson, the unions are actively working for amnesty for illegal aliens with the goal of unionizing them, and that's a fact.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com


Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 22, 2006 2:40 PM | Report abuse

"The government makes dividends tax free (why aren't my wages tax free if the stockholders dividends are?)."

Dividends are not tax free. They are taxed. Just not at the individual taxpayer's marginal tax rate.

"The only way to stop most of illegal immigration from the South would be to annex Mexico."

I heard on TV last night about conspiracy people claiming that there is a plan for a North American Federation (Canada, the U. S. and Mexico). Hey guys! With the Free Trade Agreements, we have that loosely already.

Kinky Freidman's plan of the escrow accounts for Mexican Generals as unrealistic as it sounds, isn't really any worse than the idea of a fence from Brownsville to San Ysidro.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 22, 2006 2:36 PM | Report abuse

at this point, it's a waste of time to advocate tighter border controls and greater oversight of employers. The jobs are here, so here is where the workers that want them will come. We can strut and puff our collective chest out as much as we want, but until the workers have a good standard of living and at least a decent chance of employment in their home countries, they will keep coming.

here's an idea: what if the US, Canada, and Mexico were to re-visit NAFTA, making it EVEN EASIER for employers from any of the three nations to set up shop in any of the three nations? US manufacturing would go to Mexico, sure, and maybe other industries. And some would go to Canada. The taxes, and how they would be assessed and paid are a major issue with this approach, and of course border security... but if they could minimize the chasing of folks across the desert etc i believe that it might free up some funds for a more sophisticated system which would identify certain blacklisted individuals and leave others alone.

And in the meanwhile, american entrepreneurs would benefit from the (further) opening of other North American markets and expansion of the skilled labor pool, and Mexican (and other) would-be migrants might not have to go as far to find a job - and thus be less motivated to sneak in, as "sneaking in" would be pointless. It would also allow for the re-direction of funds presently used to catch those trying to enter illegally, and might even a greater degree of cooperation between North and Central American nations.

Of course, there are huge potential security and conflict of interest problems with this idea, but i don't think these are such that they could not be resolved. Our (global) population will not stop growing in our lifetime, short of some catastrophic event beyond our ability to predict, and we need to be able to cooperate and agree with our neighbors if at all possible... otherwise, it's going to be an increasingly difficult millenium.

Posted by: meuphys | August 22, 2006 2:28 PM | Report abuse

There are 12,000,000 illegal workers here. That's over 4% of the total population. If we got rid of all of them, there would not be enough Americans to take their place.

Mexico and most other Central and South American countries are so incompetently managed that there are legions of people going hungry there. When people are hungry and lacking the basic necessities of life, no fence will be big enough to keep them out. The cost of prevention would be so high that it would divert resources from the war on terror, and probably not for much gain.

The only way to stop most of illegal immigration from the South would be to annex Mexico.

Posted by: Zathras | August 22, 2006 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Mike this is long so bear with me,
In my opinion alot of the problems you are talking about don't stem from immigration as much as they stem from a change in the fundamental view of how corporations are perceived. In the past corporations focus was long-term profitability and therefore quality long-term employees were the most important part. Companies supported this by offering pensions and benefits to attract quality employees. Also the stock market was viewed as a long-term investment oppurtunity.
In the 80s the increase of Leveraged buy-outs by investment banks (RJR-nabisco for example) led the power structure of corprate america to change hands from old guard long-term and employee owners to short-term investment moguls that pushed for maximum profits to finance the massive debt they accrued buying up corprate america. This led to a economic model where the employee was no longer as a valuable as in the past (and a recession).
Now we move into the 90s and the stock market craze that insued. Due to the unprecedented growth of investment in the stock market (via 401ks and dot com boom) companies were forced (or elected) to change their strategy of being pro-employee to being pro-stock holder.
Now in the past Unions (and Gov) had been the balancing force to misguided corporate economic policy. However, with the loss of employee control of corprate stocks in the 80s the union members no longer had a major say in corporate decisions. Taken with the pro-globalization mind set of the government (Clinton and GOP congress) this led to a massive loss of manufactoring jobs. Now usually this type of thing would get every elected official thrown out of office, but the internet boom carried the economy through it relativly well and as we know people vote their pocketbooks.
Now 26 years down the road people want to go back to the way it was. The only problem is that pensions are a thing of the past, and employees are advised NOT to invest in their own company (see Enron for why). The government makes dividends tax free (why aren't my wages tax free if the stockholders dividends are?). This leads to a situation where corprate managers feel no loyalty to the employee, but tremendous amount of loyalty to their stock price. Hence outsourcing and globalization.
What some politicians want you to think is that this was all caused by illegal immigration. That just isn't true. Now immigration is a major problem that needs a serious solution, but so is corprate accountability. Not to mention a change in Tax structure on dividends earning.
If you really want to secure american working class jobs then push for higher taxes and a universal healthcare system. THAT is the number one reason why companies move out of the US. See the way that Ford plants in Canada don't close when Detroit 'downsizes'
Sorry about being so long-winded.

Posted by: Andy R | August 22, 2006 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Colin, you say "globalization" is here to stay, but what does this mean. The U.K. is about to end all work permits becasue they have nearly 600,000 legal AND illegal foreign workers. Germany is in the same boat, but has about 500,000 foreign workers. The U.S. has more than 12 million!! Our population and GNP are about that of Germany and the U.K. combined and THEY recognize they cannot afford legal OR illegal immigrant workers. The cure is to flat out ban them. It may sound hard hearted, but we need to round up and deport EVERY illegal worker in this country. At the same time, we need to do what the rest of the world does (and what the Fourteenth Amendment implies) and deny automatic citizenship to the children of illegals. Next, we need to tax businesses and corporations for outsourcing jobs. Yes, add tarrifs to goods made or grown outside of the U.S. And force companies to pay for the costs of outsourcing jobs and any form of guest worker they bring in. This would include medical insurance, law enforcement, welfare, education, and other costs that are presently passed onto the tax payer. One estimate is that guest workers on L series visa's COST us around $25,000 annually. So, when someone comes on and post that we cannot afford to get rid of them, I cannot help but wonder why should WE subsidize corporations and their guest workers. The true cost of that illegal painting your house for $8 an hour is about double what you would pay for an American citizen to do it if the illegal wasn't here. So...fine *every* employer of any illegal. If it's someone picking up a guy to do yard work from a Home Depot parking lot, make them pay $10,000 for every day or portion thereof that worker was employed by them. Same thing for a rural farmer, a factory line, a construction company, a landscaping outfit. I certainly never volunteered to subsidize their labor costs. They are stealing from me when they hire these people, so make 'em pay! Also, since the illegals are here, well, illegally, then they have no right whatsoever to any money, property, or possessions they acquired here. Take 'em. If we got over the sob stories twits write in the Post and the outright lies told by certain writers and politician's and actually got rid of guest workers and illegals, we would be better off as a nation. To not do this, however, is courting national disaster.

Posted by: MikeB | August 22, 2006 1:59 PM | Report abuse

I understand where MikeB is coming from, but my question for him - and anyone else that is vehemently against both globalization and illegal immigrants - is quite simply: what's your solution?

Globalization is here to stay, as the Clintons' realized early on, so I don't think simply saying we should work to roll back free trade agreements is very constructive. IF your suggestion is that we should modify such agreements and demand higher wage floors, environmental protections, etc. as part of such agreements than I'm completely with you. But simply reinstating tarriffs/subsidies? That really will hurt the US economy in both the long and short term. Andy Stern actually has some fascinating ideas about the need to internationalize unions if US workers are ever going to get a fair shake, since just focusing on US policy isn't enough any more. I think he has the right idea.

As far as illegal immigrants go, I think most people agree that we need to get control of our borders. That being said, do you really fault labor for trying to organize such individuals? If you organize them, and raise their wage floor, you're ultimately helping US WORKERS as well - b/c the disparity between the wages paid to legal and illegal works will be smaller. Moreover, if some of those illegal works ultimately do gain legal status you'll have a a new group indebted to labor. Gotta say, that sounds like a pretty good plan to me.

Posted by: Colin | August 22, 2006 1:33 PM | Report abuse

"The problem with bringing out the labor vote is that I don't know if the voters all vote democrat."

Andy, they would! I was one of those on-the-ground Kerry supporters and workers and actually organized meetings of 10, 20, 50, sometimes as many as 100 factory workers. You want to know their CHIEF concern? It wasn't Iraq. It wasn't corruption. It wasn't "choice". It was their jobs. Their ability to feed an clothe their kids, provide some kind of health care. That's it! You want to really understand why genuine honest-to-god working class people flat out detest the Clinton's and the self appointed Democratic spokesmen? It's because these rats want to STEAL their jobs. These baffoons, politicially correct suicidal wing nuts are willing to blindly sell other peoples livelihood simply to look good. Oh, they can understand Bush and Repbublican's wanting to do it. Working class people are little better the serf's to these goons. But the Party of Roosevelt? How on earth did Clinton and the public empoyees, government for god's sake, get in charge of the DNC? The Clinton's started this outsourcing crap, expanded the "guest worker" programs. They are forever associated with globalization. A very special place in hell is reserved for people who don't understand that ordinary people want to eat, that it's a struggle to provide food and clothing for their children, and that we live in a fish bowl where the politcially correct actions of "leftists" can ruin peoples lives. The Democartic Party can ensure victory for the forseeable future if they just keep this in mind.

Posted by: MikeB | August 22, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Truth Hunter,

I think you've got the unions all wrong on that one. Most of those guys are furious at illegal immigrants and want them out of the workforce because they feel that they are taking their jobs away and dragging salaries and working conditions down through black market labor which by it's very nature ignores labor and wage laws. When unions talk about expanding workers rights, they want to take back some things like the overtime rights that Bush changed. They want government to do something about what they believe are illegal or unethical efforts by Walmart and other big retailers to prevent workers from organizing.

Now it is true that they want to be able to organize *legal* immigrants, but that is a whole other matter. My ancestors and yours were legal immigrants and certainly they had as much right to participate in politics as anyone else.

Not that I'm some huge proponent of everything that unions are doing. I'm actually a firm believer in applying the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to unions just the same as corporations.

Posted by: Jackson Landers | August 22, 2006 11:50 AM | Report abuse

Jonathan Weisman had an article in the Post yesterday about the CBO estimate of the immigration bill will cost something like $127 billion dollars. Of course, that IS JUST federal direct costs. In addition, the estimates for entitlements and other federally mandidated programs (ESL, etc.) amount to another $300 billion, direct education costs another $100 PLUS billion, medcial cost $200 billion, law enforcement costs $120 billion, AND - what no one seems to be talking about - indirect costs of around $500 billion. Those indirect costs are what concerns us here. All of those illegals, now newly legal, wont be working for $8 an hour taking a construction job from an American worker, being paid under the table any more. They will be competing for factory jobs, ANY unsilled or semi-skilled job. This is going to displace hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of American workers and begin a run to the bottom for wages and benefits. American workers will loose benefits because the new workforce will trade them for jobs. American workers will either accept reduced wages or loose their jobs because the millions of newly legal workers added to the workforce will work for less.

For the brainless conservatives, this may appear to be an example of market forces at work. But the consequences of people without medical insurance using the emergency room as their primary care, of children going without insurance, the broekn marriages, mortgage defaults, and all of the misery certain to result from this is going to cost them, cost all of us dearly.

Organized labor's answer to all of this? They want to organize illegals! Imagine, the AFLCIO is now actively anti-labor, at least anti-Amercian labor. But, then, so are all Republican's and a lot of leading Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell, that far better deserve to be defeated than Joseph Lieberman.

You want the publics take on labor unions today? They represent public employees and government. This simply means more taxes, more government employees, and an ever heavier burdon on the rest of us. It is no wonder that big labor actively WANTS the illegals, it means more government programs, more government money, more government employees, and more memebers of the public employee unions.

We all know that corporate America is populated by ruthless swindlers and crooks. It appears that a government-labor combine has joined them. So, the misery index is at an all time high for the average American worker. If you're employed in the private sector and are starting to feel like road kill with the vultures picking over your carcus...join the club. For myself, I am angry as hell! Where is my Party? Do the Democrats stand for us or are they against us?

Posted by: MikeB | August 22, 2006 11:40 AM | Report abuse

I would go a step farther than Chris' conclusion and say that even if Democrats do make the major gains that are now expected, labor will still be considered to be losing it's influence. The conventional wisdom for why the Democrats should win big has already been formed and organized labor isn't a part of it.

Repeated flirtations with the Republican party over the last few years will ultimately cost labor dearly. It's not as if the GOP has any real commitment to labor issues (and I acknowledge that they have very well-thought out reasons for this, even as I often disagree). Meanwhile, nationally, the Democrats are getting used to the idea that the unions are undependable in their support and not particularly useful even when they offer it. As Howard Dean builds his massive new national party apparatus, the Democrats will have a more and more capable grassroots GOTV machine of their own. A machine that does some jobs that the unions once did. The AFL-CIO could manage a commendable 'John Henry' effort this fall, but it doesn't really matter since Dean's new machine will eventually be taking the place of their job in politics.

http://rule-303.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Jackson Landers | August 22, 2006 11:30 AM | Report abuse

The problem with bringing out the labor vote is that I don't know if the voters all vote democrat.
You state yourself that one in four votes is cast by Union members. If that is true, and they all vote democrat then how do we lose?
From my experience here in Massachusetts where labor unions have tremendous power and influence the guys who have the local 297 stickers on their trucks are the same guys who read the Boston Herald (Right leaning paper) and have Bush stickers on their hardhats.
Now it might not be the same in say Ohio, but around here the Union folks are a pretty socially conservative group and those folks usually vote republican in National elections.

Posted by: Andy R | August 22, 2006 11:22 AM | Report abuse

The union push to "expand workers rights" is PC-speak for advocation of immigrant, especially illegal alien, "rights."

Unions, a once patriotic and powerful spokes-vehicle for a disadvantaged U.S. labor force, are now trying to capitalize on the bonanza of millions of illegal alien workers.

These Democratic self-interest unions trying to profit from the dues garnered from lawbreaking laborers, are no better than the greedy GOP business community who encourage and profit from the wage-repressing illegals.

They guarantee we'll get the best government that self-interests can buy.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | August 22, 2006 11:21 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company