Labor Belongs to the Dems, Right?
It has long been a forgone conclusion that the Democrats own Big Labor's loyalty. Well, maybe not anymore. This New York Times article describes how Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), has been putting issues above partisanship. When Democratic officials pursue policies unfriendly to SEIU's members, the union has not been afraid to go after them. For instance, SEIU fought New York Governor Eliot Spitzer after he proposed large cuts in health care. The union also opposed the re-election of Democratic incumbents in Chicago who supported the Mayor's veto of a bill to raise pay for retail workers.
Now, to be honest, because the issues about which SEIU cares -- health care, higher wages, etc. -- are ones on which Democrats generally do better, SEIU is still a strong supporter of the Democratic Party and its candidates. However, the union is shaking things up by demanding accountability of the Democrats who it supports. One reason that SEIU broke from the AFL-CIO was that it did not want to blindly pump money into the campaign of whatever candidate won the Democratic primary, but rather, wants candidates to prove that their positions are worthy of the working class' support. The above examples suggest that the union is holding true to this mission.
It is refreshing to see how SEIU is weilding its political weight to ensure that those purporting to fight for the working class are actually doing so -- particularly on the issue of health care. SEIU has promised to go after those elected officials that opposed the SCHIP expansion bill. As the NYT article discusses, the union was also instrumental in forcing Democratic presidential candidates to develop health care plans (or at least to do so earlier than they otherwise might have). SEIU has even been able to get all the major presidential candidates to "walk a day" in the shoes of a health care worker who is a union member.
This has long been a problem for the Democratic Party leadership -- they view too many groups like labor, ethnic minorities, homosexuals and environmentalists as somehow captive. Then they go off and try to court Bank of America and wind up helping Republicans to rewrite bankrupcty laws in order to preserve these new alliances.
They do the same things on social issues by courting evangelicals at the expense of the more socially liberal members of the party.
Anyone on the left who complains is told to stop demanding idealogical purity. But they can't talk that way to Andry Stern. The Democrats need the money and votes he can provide. So, this is good news.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 30, 2007 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Labor has always done what SEIU is doing. It's just that in recent years they have been playing too much defense to really assert themselves in the Democratic Party or in the halls of Congress and the state legislatures. SEIU's "new" message or tactic or position is really a revival of what I would call traditional labor practices which is to demand that those who say they'll carry the water for your people actually do so in return for your support and assistance. For quite a few years, way too many Democrats have managed to rhetorically support working people and families at election time but actually caved in to support business interests when it came to casting their votes as legislators. Far too often the past 25 or so years the major AFL-CIO players have accepted compromises that were detrimental to the interests of labor because they felt they needed to prop up any and all Democrats. That was not always how the unions operated. If there's any one source of continued progressive strength in the political life of the country it is labor. T'was ever thus. SEIU is right on target with reasserting labor's strength in the political process.
October 30, 2007 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
And at the same time, those who consider themselves progressive, and are socially liberal seem to be expected to be labor friendly and fiscally liberal (not Liberal). Otherwise one cannot be a true progressive.
If we must label each other with a small, finite set of terms (liberal, conservative; progressive, neoconservative; Democrat, Republican), then we need to allow some flexibility within those terms to include those who are not "ideologically pure."
~~~~~~~~~~~
Is est vicis muto probo.
Come visit PROJECT: Lucidity
Where everybody knows your name...
unless you use a pseudonym
October 30, 2007 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Electioncentral just reported that John Edwards has been endorsed by the four major chapters of the SEIU, but not by the national union. Seems like endorsing Edwards, the most pro-labor in our field, and certainly the most populist in general, deserves the SEIU's backing.
A little ratification as the labor candidate might give Edwards the boost he needs right now.
If they won't and the SEIU later seems unhappy with the nominee, it'll be hard ot have sympathy for them.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 30, 2007 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is hardly new for labor to endorse candidates from both parties, certainly at the congressional level. There are still pockets of GOP Congressmen, particularly in the northeast but not exclusively, who have been and remain a friend to labor. The SEIU is innovative and worthy of praise for many reasons, but the notion that the SEIU has broken new ground by not being beholden to one political party does not comport with fact.
October 31, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink