Pennsylvania AFL-CIO Fails to Help Its Members

by Chris Bowers, Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 12:05:41 PM EST

As someone who played a big role in helping to start a union in PA, this pisses me off. Although this might hurt my career, I am going to openly admit to not finding the AFL-CIO open enough, aggressive enough, and progressive enough. And I don't like the way they endorse candidates:
The 58 member Pennsylvania AFL-CIO Executive Council, representing 900,000 union members in Pennsylvania made endorsements for the November 2, 2004 General Election. The endorsements are based upon the voting records and commitment of the candidates on working family issues, including good jobs and quality affordable health care. The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO endorsed the following candidates:

U.S. Senate: Arlen Specter (R); Attorney General: Jim Eisenhower (D); Auditor General: Jack Wagner (D); State Treasurer: Bob Casey (D); U.S. Congress: 1st Robert A. Brady (D); 2nd Chaka Fattah (D); 3rd Steven Porter (D); 4th Stevan Drobac Jr. (D); 6th Lois Murphy; 11th Paul E. Kanjorski (D); 12th John P. Murtha (D); 13th Allyson Schwartz (D); 14th Mike Doyle (D); 15th Joe Driscoll (D); 16th Lois Herr (D); 17th Tim Holden (D)

I agree with them, except in one obvious instance:

Labor Rights, Progressive Score
Joe Hoeffel, 83.33
Arlen Specter, 32.61

Their comparative voting records on labor are divergent, and Hoeffel is clearly more progressive on labor issues. This is what can happen if only 58 people are making the political decisions for 600,000+ people. Endorsement voting should be open to all union officers, including officers of locals. If a union isn't responding to the desires of its locals, then what is it doing?

At the very least, does the PA AFL-CIO executive committee have some delusion that keeping Republicans in control of the Senate will be good for labor? With the Senate as close as it is, this election in PA is just as much about which party controls the Senate as which candidate represents PA. One might as well compare the labor records of Jack Reed to Saxby Chambliss when making an endorsement in this race. After all, elect Specter, and you empower whackos like Chambliss. Elect Hoeffel, and you empower champions of labor like Reed.




Tags: Labor (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 11 Comments :: Post a Comment


This is pathetic (none / 0)

After Specter screwed the workers with the new OT rules the AFL-CIO endorses him?  This is going to make it very hard for Hoeffel to build any momentum.
by MF on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 12:39:15 PM EST

not for Ginny? (none / 0)

"Ginny Schrader's PA-08
is the heart of the
battleground for Congress" --
that's what her ad says in
the next column.

but the Pa. AFL-CIO takes a pass
on this one? what the F?

by Woody on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 01:31:33 PM EST

Re: not for Ginny? (none / 0)

Too much of an unknown for them probably. That annoys me.
by Chris Bowers on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 02:29:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is this a Pennsylvania thing? (none / 0)

Because the Georgia AFL-CIO endorsed an unknown, unlikely to win Democrat in GA-08 before the Republican primary was even over.
Support Regina Thomas, GA-12
by Drew on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 10:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Very bad decision on the part of the AFL-CIO (none / 0)

I can't believe they left off Ginny  and went with Specter too.  I dont' like the AFL-CIO either for other reasons though. They're the classic example of a union that's forgotten the point of organized labor.  I'm hoping to work with SEIU (part of AFL-CIO, right?) when the election is over.  They have a lot more energy and bottom-up feel  for me.  
by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 02:38:15 PM EST

Good thing (none / 0)

It's a good thing that the entire membership didn't participate in this selection...otherwise they might have endorsed a bunch of republicans!  What most libs don't seem to understand is that a lot of the big unions (Teamsters,AFL-CIO, etc) are full of rednecks.
by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 04:03:02 PM EST

Re: Good thing (none / 0)

Unions members vote 60%+ Democratic. Let them all participate.
by Chris Bowers on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 05:36:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

unions and Rethugs (4.00 / 1)

Even the membership of the more conservative unions votes for Dems by a larger margin the average white male nonunion voter.  That is one of the reasons Rethugs would like to destroy all unions.  The other reason is the Rethug ideological preference for sweatshop labor.

The minority of diehard Rethugs among union members are largely those are voting on things other than economic interest (religion, racial animosity, guns, etc.).  Some people are unreachable by methods of reason.

Occasionally a Rethug does deliver some real gains to a particular union. The SEIU went big for Pataki in 2002 because of bills Pataki signed that meant big raises for hospital workers.  This is rare, however.

Many unions feel they need to endorse at least a few Rethugs to show their nonpartisan bonafides.
Also, they think it helps to have at least one or two channels of communication over to the other side. So they will look for one of the few Rethugs who is not a total antilabor neanderthal, and one who is probably going to win anyway.  That's probably the calculation they are making in Pennsylvania. As Chris points out, it may be a bad bet in this case.

by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 04:25:28 PM EST

Re: unions and Rethugs (none / 0)

Don't forget that unions want to endorse the winner, so that they can claim to be responsible for the result.  If they endorse the losers of too many elections they end up distilling their own political potency.  If they do endorse the winner, at least they feel empowered to call in a favor from that person later on.  I don't like the Senate endorsement, but I strongly suspect this line of reasoning was involved.
by Anonymous Citizen on Wed Sep 01, 2004 at 05:16:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

SEIU (none / 0)

Don't get me started on the SEIU.  The havoc and destruction they're causing is not winning too many friends in my neck of the woods.

I mean, come on, the purple shirts stood at the barricades during the WTO protests in Seattle, but are now doing max contributions to some very reprehensible Republican candidates.

IUPAT and the ILWU are great, AFSCME is pretty effective, but SEIU feels that it is necessary to play games.

by Anonymous Citizen on Mon Sep 06, 2004 at 04:04:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

AFL-CIO endorsing Specter: (none / 0)

When they endorsed Specter they said they didn't want to be taken for granted.  Now it would be one thing if the endorsed Specter over someone like an Ed Rendell with a poor labor record, but Joe Hoeffoel had an outstanding record on labor issues.
Councilman Bill Painter
by Painter2004 on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 10:50:27 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: