Sure, it could be to pressure the GOP to care about unions, or it could be to pressure democrats to commit to more protections.
and speaking at their conference as a union president just gives a stronger surface-level impression to voters that they might.
A really good way to prove that democrats are more union friendly than republicans would be to commit to more union protections. Thatās a simple narrative to fix, if they were interested.
Being āLeftā encompasses more than just solidarity with the working class
Not to a fucking union, there isnāt. Literally their only job is collective bargaining, and threatening to withhold support to gain concessions is famously their most useful tool.
Sure, itĀ couldĀ be to pressure the GOP to care about unions,Ā or it could be to pressure democrats to commit to more protections.
If thatās the goal, simply withholding endorsement for the democratic nominee would achieve that goal. Speaking at the RNC, without any serious commitment to unions made by the GOP, goes far beyond that goal, and is again, naive.
A really good way to prove that democrats are more union friendly than republicans would be to commit to more union protections. Thatās a simple narrative to fix, if they were interested.
A really really good way to prove democrats are more union friendly would be to have a president in office with an exceptional pro-union record, and to have earned the endorsement of at least 6 other major unions.
Not to a fucking union, there isnāt.
Yes, but the statement youāre replying to was a general statement on leftism. Thatās why I follow that up with āEven in this context ā¦ā
Literally their only job is collective bargaining, and threatening to withhold support to gain concessions isĀ famouslytheir most useful tool.
That made me chuckle, you have a fair point. But again, withholding support is one thing, and speaking at the RNC with republicans who donāt play ball with workersā rights is another.
I mean, whatās the play exactly? āGive us even more union protections or Iām gonna help the other guys who definitely donāt give a damn?ā What protections specifically? The kinds of protections given to workers by the PRO Act? The thing Republicans try to shoot down over and over again?
That made me chuckle, you have a fair point. But again, withholding support is one thing, and speaking at the RNC with republicans who donāt play ball with workersā rights is another.
Not really; one way to escalate your pressure is to scare them into thinking you might endorse the republican ticket. Insofar as going on strike materially harms a companyās bottom line, potentially endorsing the other candidate works in the same way. We wouldnāt suggest that the objective of a strike is to bankrupt their negotiation partner - why would we make a similar accusation of the Teamsters against the democrats?
And nothing says that republicans necessarily couldnāt offer better support to unions - even if teamsters did endorse Trump, it very well could be because Trump made a material concession to their interest. Nothing says that Teamsters should be interested in anything other than protecting their unionās interests, even if that means getting it from the Republicans, if they are āplaying ballā. (The teamsters are a union for a very conservative group of members; itās not out of the question that Trump might grant some very targeted concessions to that group in order to shore up his base)
Thatās why itās crazy that the democrats arenāt making an effort to be more pro-union - in most other ways, democrats are the obvious harm-reduction choice. But letās not pretend as if union protections havenāt been under constant attack and legal challenges during the Biden administration - there is a lot of room for Harris to offer more in the way of union and labor legislation and support. There are a lot of reasons why everyone ought to vote for democrats over republicans, but pretending as if there are no material reasons a group with specific labor interests might choose to endorse republicans is itself naieve. Ideally this should motivate the democrats to offer better policy to their constituents, but seems as if democrats would much rather point fingers and accuse those asking for better policy as being covert opposition.
Yes, but the statement youāre replying to was a general statement on leftism. Thatās why I follow that up with āEven in this context ā¦ā
AOC shouldnāt be blaming Teamsters for agitating for better labor policy, and doing so absolutely is punching left, because the thing Teamsters is interested in is a politically-left objective. Not that AOC doesnāt have personal reasons for ignoring those broader goals, but that doesnāt mean what sheās doing isnāt punching left.
Itās easy to imagine Teamsters as the party at fault because they represent a group of historically very conservative members, but their aim is to secure better labor relations just like every other union.
My premise is that, with respect to supporting a party that will support unions, itād be ludicrous to expect that support from the GOP, because theyāve been consistently anti-union for over 40 years.
one way to escalate your pressure is to scare them into thinking you might endorse the republican ticket
Yeah, and Iām asserting that itās stupid to even consider endorsing the republican ticket, given how much worse republicans are for unions. Not endorsing the democrats could be likened to going on strike from some company; threatening to endorse the GOP would be like choosing to go work for an even more exploitative company in retaliation.
And nothing says that republicansĀ necessarilycouldnāt offer better support to unions - even if teamstersĀ didĀ endorse Trump, it very well could be because Trump made a material concession to their interest. Nothing says that Teamsters should be interested in anything other than protecting their unionās interests, even if that means getting it from the Republicans, if they are āplaying ballā. (The teamsters are a union for a very conservative group of members; itās not out of the question that Trump might grant some very targeted concessions to that group in order to shore up his base)
Yeah, they could offer better support for unionsā¦they could also offer to lower prescription drug prices and make school lunches free for grade schoolers. Theyāre not gonna do any of those things, b/c they donāt wanna do any of those things and they havenāt wanted to do any of those things in at least 40 years. Iāll accept cited evidence to the contrary, otherwise we can agree to disagree.
Thatās why itās crazy that the democrats arenāt making an effort to beĀ moreĀ pro-union - in most other ways, democrats are the obvious harm-reduction choice. But letās not pretend as if union protections havenāt been under constant attack and legal challenges during the Biden administration - there is a lot of room for Harris to offer more in the way of union and labor legislation and support.
What specific issue do you take with the Democratic partyās support for unions? Do you refute my earlier link calling a Biden a good pro-union president, and if so can you provide sourced info to explain why?
There are a lot of reasons why everyone ought to vote for democrats over republicans,
Yeah
but pretending as if there are no material reasons a group with specific labor interests might choose to endorse republicans is itself naieve.
This feels like such a āno uā lol. What reasons does a group with specific labor interests have to endorse a party thatās been overly pro-company since Reagan?
Ideally this should motivate the democrats to offer better policy to their constituents, but seems as if democrats would much rather point fingers and accuse those asking for better policy as being covert opposition.
Again, what policies specifically?
AOC shouldnāt be blaming Teamsters for agitating for better labor policy, and doing soĀ absolutely ispunching left, becauseĀ the thing Teamsters is interested in is a politically-left objective. Not that AOC doesnāt have personal reasons for ignoring those broader goals, but that doesnāt mean what sheās doing isnāt punching left.
Look. I donāt know very much about Sean OāBrien. Iām not gonna accuse him of secretly being anti-union or any crazy bs like that. But if going to the RNC and not endorsing Harris are moves that benefits Republicans (it does), and if Republicans are worse on unions (they are), then whether he means to or not, heās hurting union workers. From that lens, AOC questioning his leadership isnāt punching left - sheās either punching a guy whoās actually to her right (for reasons outside workersā rights) or punching a guy who might as well be.
And one more thing: at the end of the day, sheās critical of the guy, not the mission. Sheās not saying āworkers shouldnāt have more protectionsā, sheās saying āI question the leadership of this guy whose job it is to get workers more protectionsā. And quite frankly I agree with that.
Edit: yāknow how I said I donāt know much about Sean OāBrien? Well thanks to another lemmyer, now I do!
So yeah, if thereās an ounce of truth to this, it speaks to the nagging feeling I have that heās the kind of guy whoās a probably secretly a conservative forā¦other reasons.
So yeah, if thereās an ounce of truth to this, it speaks to the nagging feeling I have that heās the kind of guy whoās a probably secretly a conservative forā¦other reasons.
I think this is where liberal understandings of union and labor relations as R or D policy agendas really gets in the way of a broader historical understanding of labor movements, and itās the reason Iām not particularly interested in having this debate with you. There have been many labor groups and unions in the USās history that have been on the wrong side of racial and civil rights issues. W.E.B. Du Bois described the relationship between American racism, slavery, and labor relations during and after slavery almost 100 years ago now. Hell, even as recently as the civil rights movement unions were split on the support of racial segregation in the south. Hereās one article from Herbert Hill written in '59 that discusses this issue pretty clearly.
Teamsters is a union of truck drivers. In American political terms, truckers are one of the most vocally conservative labor demographics in the US; it shouldnāt be surprising that there would be discrimination within it. But thatās exactly the problem with american political discourse. We cleave our working class apart with racial and social animosity at the expense of solidarity.
Without a broader understanding of material relations as fundamental to political movements, I donāt think weāll see eye-to-eye on this. It isnāt as simple as ādemocrats are more labor friendlyā - both parties are dominated by capitalist interests, even if one makes greater attempts to balance it with labor concessions. If labor is to gain any ground in the US, it needs to be party agnostic and be aggressive about negotiating with both parties.
I have a lot Iād like to, but wonāt, say about your comment, because itās very dismissive of my entire reply, in favor of you choosing to dissect my motivations for adding a loosely-related footnote. I will say that most of your comment feels like I could boil it down to āyou almost tricked me into taking your questions at face value, but then you said that OāBrien being racist might be sorta relevant, so clearly I have a broader understanding ofā¦somethingā¦then you, so youāll never see that Iām rightā. You could clarify if you want, but I donāt really care.
That said, Iāll try to focus on your last couple sentences:
It isnāt as simple as ādemocrats are more labor friendlyā - both parties are dominated by capitalist interests, even if one makes greater attempts to balance it with labor concessions. If labor is to gain any ground in the US, it needs to be party agnostic and be aggressive about negotiating with both parties.
If this is the entire point youāve been driving at this whole time, then I still disagree with you, but I can respect your opinion. You might be right that we wonāt see eye-to-eye, but not because of me probably not having a deeper understanding of āmaterial relations being fundamental to political movementsā, or you probably not having a deeper appreciation of āactual meat-and-bones policy being fundamental to the satisfaction of union members, both short-term and long-termā. I think you and I might just have different priorities, and Iām fine leaving it at that.
All that said, I wanna circle back one more time on the actual debate that started this thing, because it wasnāt āwhat is the direct course of action unions are justified in taking to optimize worker satisfactionā. It was literally something as nebulous as āDid AOC āpunch leftā by criticizing OāBrienā. OP already admitted he probably just chose the wrong words, which I respect. Can we at the very least agree, whether your personal answer to that question is yes or no, that suggesting AOC is āpunching leftā is a poorly-worded and/or insufficiently brief critique?
If this is the entire point youāve been driving at this whole time, then I still disagree with you, but I can respect your opinion. You might be right that we wonāt see eye-to-eye, but not because of me probably not having a deeper understanding of āmaterial relations being fundamental to political movementsā, or you probably not having a deeper appreciation of āactual meat-and-bones policy being fundamental to the satisfaction of union members, both short-term and long-termā.
Yes, that was my point. I think a lot of liberals get caught up in the electoralism of general elections, and get (maybe even understandably) offended when a group they thought should clearly be on ātheir sideā decides to make a statement against them, or even simply withhold an endorsement.
Sure, meat-and-bones policy is important for advancing working class interests (iām not sure why you chose āworker satisfactionā, maybe this is further evidence of our ideological differences or maybe this is just me being pedantic, but āsatisfactionā sounds more like corporate HR jargon than the revolutionary language of class consciousness), but endorsements arenāt like straw-polls. Unions come from a bloody and cutthroat history of class struggle that have to negotiate with multi-billion dollar industries - an endorsement or even a signal of approval toward competition is just another way to gain leverage. As much as we would all really like to be able to just pick a party/ticket like picking a flavor of ice cream, thatās just not what class struggle is, least of all to a labor union.
All that said, I wanna circle back one more time on the actual debate that started this thing, because it wasnāt āwhat is the direct course of action unions are justified in taking to optimize worker satisfactionā. It was literally something as nebulous as āDid AOC āpunch leftā by criticizing OāBrienā
Yes, I still think it is punching left, and I think @the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works was mistaken in walking it back. It would be one thing if she was making a point to advocate for democratic policy choices, but the comment from AOC in question was:
āWhen the Teamsters are in trouble, who do they call when we need to make sure that Teamsters pensions are bailed out? ā¦ It was Sean OāBrien calling Democrats for helpā
I think thatās a petty and entitled thing to say to a union advocating for its members. This was in response to them simply declining to endorse either candidate because they ācouldnāt get commitments on our issuesā. Teamsters is perfectly within their right to withhold their endorsement in service of pushing for labor commitments from democrats even if you think theyāre wrong, and the worst way to respond to that feedback is to throw a tantrum and complain that theyāre being ungrateful.
Democrats really need support from union households in the swing states where Teamsters is reporting a trump advantage in their membership. They canāt afford to be throwing punches at them (even if you think itās not punching left). What drives me crazy is that democrats have been willing to bend to a bunch of conservative issues in order to gain moderate republican support - this one issue that is objectively a leftist issue and involves a crucial block of voters in swing states is, whatā¦? too radical?
I honestly donāt know anymore. dDmocratic politics have just lost all coherence as a left-wing political party. Maybe this is just a temporary change in messaging, but it really feels like theyāre abandoning all pretense as a progressive party.
Yes, that was my point. I think a lot of liberals get caught up in the electoralism of general elections, and get (maybe even understandably) offended when a group they thought should clearly be on ātheir sideā decides to make a statement against them, or even simply withhold an endorsement.
Okay, Iāll take āmaybe even understandablyā.
Sure, meat-and-bones policy is important for advancing working class interests (iām not sure why you chose āworker satisfactionā, maybe this is further evidence of our ideological differences or maybe this is just me being pedantic, but āsatisfactionā sounds more like corporate HR jargon than the revolutionary language of class consciousness),
Dude. SUPER pedantic.
but endorsements arenāt like straw-polls. Unions come from a bloody and cutthroat history of class struggle that have to negotiate with multi-billion dollar industries - an endorsement or even a signal of approval toward competition is just another way to gain leverage. As much as we would all really like to be able to just pick a party/ticket like picking a flavor of ice cream, thatās just not what class struggle is, least of all to a labor union.
I guess Iāll more or less repeat myself from earlier: Not endorsing the democrats could be likened to going on strike from some company, but threatening to endorse the GOP would be like choosing to go work for an even more exploitative company in retaliation.
Okay, fine, you disagree. But the immediate question I asked was ācan we agree it was a poorly worded and/or insufficiently brief critiqueā aka the kind of statement that itās easy to get lost in pointless pendantry over? Yāknow, the kind of pedantry I feel like weāve been arguing over this whole time?
I think thatās a petty and entitled thing to say to a union advocating for its members.
Depends on how you define āadvocating for its membersā. Signaling support for the political party most of your constituents align with, most definitely for reasons outside workersā rights, is one definition. Signalling support for the for the party thatāll actually help your constituents? Thatās another.
Teamsters is perfectly within their right to withhold their endorsement in service of pushing for labor commitments from democrats
What committments?? This is exactly what I was asking you 2 replies ago, and even before that. And youāve so far dodged the question. I still donāt understand the actual substantive things you want the Democratic party to do.
Democrats really need support from union households in the swing states where Teamsters is reporting a trump advantage in their membership. They canāt afford to be throwing punches at them (even if you think itās not punching left).
You make it sound like sheās punching at all Teamsters, when sheās not. Sheās just criticizing their leader.
What drives me crazy is that democrats have been willing to bend to a bunch of conservative issues in order to gain moderate republican support - this one issue that is objectively a leftist issue *and* involves a crucial block of voters in swing states is, whatā¦? too radical?
Youāre saying they bend to the right on a lot of things but you also want them to bend to the rightā¦onā¦what exactly? On workersā rights??
I honestly donāt know anymore. dDmocratic politics have just lost all coherence as a left-wing political party. Maybe this is just a temporary change in messaging, but it really feels like theyāre abandoning all pretense as a progressive party.
Idk man, I feel like thereās some aspect of your personal political ideology thatās so different from mine (and Iāll assert, from most people) that thereās some coreĀ assumption you and I might be obliviously disagreeing on, like āthe left is more politically aligned with supporting workersā rightsā or something.
but threatening to endorse the GOP would be like choosing to go work for an even more exploitative company in retaliation.
How? Maybe itās more like making a public statement about private negotiations that damages the reputation of the partner company, but āgoing to work for another companyā doesnāt track. Theyāre threatening to harm the democratic campaign by publicly shaming them, not self-immolating.
But the immediate question I asked was ācan we agree it was a poorly worded and/or insufficiently brief critiqueā aka the kind of statement that itās easy to get lost in pointless pendantry over?
I already answered this - no, i do not agree, and I especially donāt think itās āpointless pendantryā. AOC is a dem soc, she should know that itās the job of the union to negotiate via collective bargaining and that democrats are not owed an endorsement.
What committments?? This is exactly what I was asking you 2 replies ago, and even before that. And youāve so far dodged the question. I still donāt understand the actual substantive things you want the Democratic party to do.
Because iām not privy to what the teamsters are asking for, but Iām personally frustrated that democrats keep burying their labor offerings in capital funding and investments. Democrats assume that they can make up for any loss of industry growth in one segment of the economy by promoting growth in another, but thatās not comforting to unions or unaffiliated industry workers in the rust belt, where thereās usually only one or two major job producers in their towns. Even if those jobs were being created in exactly the same place, loosing a job and having to change industry is incredibly destabilizing. Most Americans donāt have more than a couple thousand in savings, let alone a few months of expenses. Bragging about jobs created with the CHIPS act or other legislation isnāt comforting to people who live in towns that arenāt a recipient of that investment.
I think democrats need to expand social programs and remove pointless means-testing that excludes a lot of working families from benefits (and pits them against working class families in urban centers). The more socialized benefits available to small town workers, the less pressure there will be to remain employed in a dying industry. That includes childcare, healthcare, housing, food; basically everything theyāre afraid to campaign on because republicans will accuse them of being radical socialists. And they really need to stop responding to fears about job losses in small town industries by bragging about job creation in other industries.
The alternativeās are all less appealing to a socialist - a lot of unions are pushing tarrifs on foreign goods, cutting environmental regulation, ect. You canāt win those voters by creating jobs elsewhere - you really need to convince those voters that they arenāt going to be left behind if/when their townās industry goes belly-up, and saying ātough luck, move and change industriesā is only going to radicalize them further. Especially when unemployment benefits are covered in all kinds red tape and are exceedingly difficult to apply for and stay on.
As far as legislation specific to labor protections: they need to campaign on the legislation theyāve already put forward. The PRO act is an excellent bill, but iāve not heard Harris or any top democratic leadership actually campaign on it or push it in public.
You make it sound like sheās punching at all Teamsters, when sheās not. Sheās just criticizing their leader.
He represents their interests, itās his literal fucking job. Be grateful he didnāt follow the popular opinion of his members and endorse trump. I would also mention that their support of trump is pretty heavily represented in PA, WI, and MI - all states that democrats really need to win. They shouldnāt be burning bridges with Teamsters.
Youāre saying they bend to the right on a lot of things but you also want them to bend to the rightā¦onā¦what exactly? On workersā rights??
Labor protections are a definitionally-left issue. I want democrats to bend left
Idk man, I feel like thereās some aspect of your personal political ideology thatās so different from mine (and Iāll assert, from most people) that thereās some core assumption you and I might be obliviously disagreeing on, like āthe left is more politically aligned with supporting workersā rightsā or something.
There absolutely is a difference in political ideology, but our disagreement isnāt over whether āthe left is more aligned with workerās rightsā or not. We disagree about whether or not direct action ought to be targeted at the democrats at all, and thatās something I donāt think weāll see eye-to-eye on.
Sure, it could be to pressure the GOP to care about unions, or it could be to pressure democrats to commit to more protections.
A really good way to prove that democrats are more union friendly than republicans would be to commit to more union protections. Thatās a simple narrative to fix, if they were interested.
Not to a fucking union, there isnāt. Literally their only job is collective bargaining, and threatening to withhold support to gain concessions is famously their most useful tool.
If thatās the goal, simply withholding endorsement for the democratic nominee would achieve that goal. Speaking at the RNC, without any serious commitment to unions made by the GOP, goes far beyond that goal, and is again, naive.
A really really good way to prove democrats are more union friendly would be to have a president in office with an exceptional pro-union record, and to have earned the endorsement of at least 6 other major unions.
Yes, but the statement youāre replying to was a general statement on leftism. Thatās why I follow that up with āEven in this context ā¦ā
That made me chuckle, you have a fair point. But again, withholding support is one thing, and speaking at the RNC with republicans who donāt play ball with workersā rights is another.
I mean, whatās the play exactly? āGive us even more union protections or Iām gonna help the other guys who definitely donāt give a damn?ā What protections specifically? The kinds of protections given to workers by the PRO Act? The thing Republicans try to shoot down over and over again?
deleted by creator
Whoops ya posted dis twice
Not really; one way to escalate your pressure is to scare them into thinking you might endorse the republican ticket. Insofar as going on strike materially harms a companyās bottom line, potentially endorsing the other candidate works in the same way. We wouldnāt suggest that the objective of a strike is to bankrupt their negotiation partner - why would we make a similar accusation of the Teamsters against the democrats?
And nothing says that republicans necessarily couldnāt offer better support to unions - even if teamsters did endorse Trump, it very well could be because Trump made a material concession to their interest. Nothing says that Teamsters should be interested in anything other than protecting their unionās interests, even if that means getting it from the Republicans, if they are āplaying ballā. (The teamsters are a union for a very conservative group of members; itās not out of the question that Trump might grant some very targeted concessions to that group in order to shore up his base)
Thatās why itās crazy that the democrats arenāt making an effort to be more pro-union - in most other ways, democrats are the obvious harm-reduction choice. But letās not pretend as if union protections havenāt been under constant attack and legal challenges during the Biden administration - there is a lot of room for Harris to offer more in the way of union and labor legislation and support. There are a lot of reasons why everyone ought to vote for democrats over republicans, but pretending as if there are no material reasons a group with specific labor interests might choose to endorse republicans is itself naieve. Ideally this should motivate the democrats to offer better policy to their constituents, but seems as if democrats would much rather point fingers and accuse those asking for better policy as being covert opposition.
AOC shouldnāt be blaming Teamsters for agitating for better labor policy, and doing so absolutely is punching left, because the thing Teamsters is interested in is a politically-left objective. Not that AOC doesnāt have personal reasons for ignoring those broader goals, but that doesnāt mean what sheās doing isnāt punching left.
Itās easy to imagine Teamsters as the party at fault because they represent a group of historically very conservative members, but their aim is to secure better labor relations just like every other union.
My premise is that, with respect to supporting a party that will support unions, itād be ludicrous to expect that support from the GOP, because theyāve been consistently anti-union for over 40 years.
Yeah, and Iām asserting that itās stupid to even consider endorsing the republican ticket, given how much worse republicans are for unions. Not endorsing the democrats could be likened to going on strike from some company; threatening to endorse the GOP would be like choosing to go work for an even more exploitative company in retaliation.
Yeah, they could offer better support for unionsā¦they could also offer to lower prescription drug prices and make school lunches free for grade schoolers. Theyāre not gonna do any of those things, b/c they donāt wanna do any of those things and they havenāt wanted to do any of those things in at least 40 years. Iāll accept cited evidence to the contrary, otherwise we can agree to disagree.
What specific issue do you take with the Democratic partyās support for unions? Do you refute my earlier link calling a Biden a good pro-union president, and if so can you provide sourced info to explain why?
Yeah
This feels like such a āno uā lol. What reasons does a group with specific labor interests have to endorse a party thatās been overly pro-company since Reagan?
Again, what policies specifically?
Look. I donāt know very much about Sean OāBrien. Iām not gonna accuse him of secretly being anti-union or any crazy bs like that. But if going to the RNC and not endorsing Harris are moves that benefits Republicans (it does), and if Republicans are worse on unions (they are), then whether he means to or not, heās hurting union workers. From that lens, AOC questioning his leadership isnāt punching left - sheās either punching a guy whoās actually to her right (for reasons outside workersā rights) or punching a guy who might as well be.
And one more thing: at the end of the day, sheās critical of the guy, not the mission. Sheās not saying āworkers shouldnāt have more protectionsā, sheās saying āI question the leadership of this guy whose job it is to get workers more protectionsā. And quite frankly I agree with that.
Edit: yāknow how I said I donāt know much about Sean OāBrien? Well thanks to another lemmyer, now I do!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/31/teamsters-racial-discrimination-lawsuit
So yeah, if thereās an ounce of truth to this, it speaks to the nagging feeling I have that heās the kind of guy whoās a probably secretly a conservative forā¦other reasons.
I came really close to getting sucked in to a D vs R labor relations debate, but this bit woke me up and stopped me:
I think this is where liberal understandings of union and labor relations as R or D policy agendas really gets in the way of a broader historical understanding of labor movements, and itās the reason Iām not particularly interested in having this debate with you. There have been many labor groups and unions in the USās history that have been on the wrong side of racial and civil rights issues. W.E.B. Du Bois described the relationship between American racism, slavery, and labor relations during and after slavery almost 100 years ago now. Hell, even as recently as the civil rights movement unions were split on the support of racial segregation in the south. Hereās one article from Herbert Hill written in '59 that discusses this issue pretty clearly.
Teamsters is a union of truck drivers. In American political terms, truckers are one of the most vocally conservative labor demographics in the US; it shouldnāt be surprising that there would be discrimination within it. But thatās exactly the problem with american political discourse. We cleave our working class apart with racial and social animosity at the expense of solidarity.
Without a broader understanding of material relations as fundamental to political movements, I donāt think weāll see eye-to-eye on this. It isnāt as simple as ādemocrats are more labor friendlyā - both parties are dominated by capitalist interests, even if one makes greater attempts to balance it with labor concessions. If labor is to gain any ground in the US, it needs to be party agnostic and be aggressive about negotiating with both parties.
I have a lot Iād like to, but wonāt, say about your comment, because itās very dismissive of my entire reply, in favor of you choosing to dissect my motivations for adding a loosely-related footnote. I will say that most of your comment feels like I could boil it down to āyou almost tricked me into taking your questions at face value, but then you said that OāBrien being racist might be sorta relevant, so clearly I have a broader understanding ofā¦somethingā¦then you, so youāll never see that Iām rightā. You could clarify if you want, but I donāt really care.
That said, Iāll try to focus on your last couple sentences:
If this is the entire point youāve been driving at this whole time, then I still disagree with you, but I can respect your opinion. You might be right that we wonāt see eye-to-eye, but not because of me probably not having a deeper understanding of āmaterial relations being fundamental to political movementsā, or you probably not having a deeper appreciation of āactual meat-and-bones policy being fundamental to the satisfaction of union members, both short-term and long-termā. I think you and I might just have different priorities, and Iām fine leaving it at that.
All that said, I wanna circle back one more time on the actual debate that started this thing, because it wasnāt āwhat is the direct course of action unions are justified in taking to optimize worker satisfactionā. It was literally something as nebulous as āDid AOC āpunch leftā by criticizing OāBrienā. OP already admitted he probably just chose the wrong words, which I respect. Can we at the very least agree, whether your personal answer to that question is yes or no, that suggesting AOC is āpunching leftā is a poorly-worded and/or insufficiently brief critique?
Yes, that was my point. I think a lot of liberals get caught up in the electoralism of general elections, and get (maybe even understandably) offended when a group they thought should clearly be on ātheir sideā decides to make a statement against them, or even simply withhold an endorsement.
Sure, meat-and-bones policy is important for advancing working class interests (iām not sure why you chose āworker satisfactionā, maybe this is further evidence of our ideological differences or maybe this is just me being pedantic, but āsatisfactionā sounds more like corporate HR jargon than the revolutionary language of class consciousness), but endorsements arenāt like straw-polls. Unions come from a bloody and cutthroat history of class struggle that have to negotiate with multi-billion dollar industries - an endorsement or even a signal of approval toward competition is just another way to gain leverage. As much as we would all really like to be able to just pick a party/ticket like picking a flavor of ice cream, thatās just not what class struggle is, least of all to a labor union.
Yes, I still think it is punching left, and I think @the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works was mistaken in walking it back. It would be one thing if she was making a point to advocate for democratic policy choices, but the comment from AOC in question was:
I think thatās a petty and entitled thing to say to a union advocating for its members. This was in response to them simply declining to endorse either candidate because they ācouldnāt get commitments on our issuesā. Teamsters is perfectly within their right to withhold their endorsement in service of pushing for labor commitments from democrats even if you think theyāre wrong, and the worst way to respond to that feedback is to throw a tantrum and complain that theyāre being ungrateful.
Democrats really need support from union households in the swing states where Teamsters is reporting a trump advantage in their membership. They canāt afford to be throwing punches at them (even if you think itās not punching left). What drives me crazy is that democrats have been willing to bend to a bunch of conservative issues in order to gain moderate republican support - this one issue that is objectively a leftist issue and involves a crucial block of voters in swing states is, whatā¦? too radical?
I honestly donāt know anymore. dDmocratic politics have just lost all coherence as a left-wing political party. Maybe this is just a temporary change in messaging, but it really feels like theyāre abandoning all pretense as a progressive party.
Okay, Iāll take āmaybe even understandablyā.
Dude. SUPER pedantic.
I guess Iāll more or less repeat myself from earlier: Not endorsing the democrats could be likened to going on strike from some company, but threatening to endorse the GOP would be like choosing to go work for an even more exploitative company in retaliation.
Okay, fine, you disagree. But the immediate question I asked was ācan we agree it was a poorly worded and/or insufficiently brief critiqueā aka the kind of statement that itās easy to get lost in pointless pendantry over? Yāknow, the kind of pedantry I feel like weāve been arguing over this whole time?
Depends on how you define āadvocating for its membersā. Signaling support for the political party most of your constituents align with, most definitely for reasons outside workersā rights, is one definition. Signalling support for the for the party thatāll actually help your constituents? Thatās another.
What committments?? This is exactly what I was asking you 2 replies ago, and even before that. And youāve so far dodged the question. I still donāt understand the actual substantive things you want the Democratic party to do.
You make it sound like sheās punching at all Teamsters, when sheās not. Sheās just criticizing their leader.
Youāre saying they bend to the right on a lot of things but you also want them to bend to the rightā¦onā¦what exactly? On workersā rights??
Idk man, I feel like thereās some aspect of your personal political ideology thatās so different from mine (and Iāll assert, from most people) that thereās some coreĀ assumption you and I might be obliviously disagreeing on, like āthe left is more politically aligned with supporting workersā rightsā or something.
How? Maybe itās more like making a public statement about private negotiations that damages the reputation of the partner company, but āgoing to work for another companyā doesnāt track. Theyāre threatening to harm the democratic campaign by publicly shaming them, not self-immolating.
I already answered this - no, i do not agree, and I especially donāt think itās āpointless pendantryā. AOC is a dem soc, she should know that itās the job of the union to negotiate via collective bargaining and that democrats are not owed an endorsement.
Because iām not privy to what the teamsters are asking for, but Iām personally frustrated that democrats keep burying their labor offerings in capital funding and investments. Democrats assume that they can make up for any loss of industry growth in one segment of the economy by promoting growth in another, but thatās not comforting to unions or unaffiliated industry workers in the rust belt, where thereās usually only one or two major job producers in their towns. Even if those jobs were being created in exactly the same place, loosing a job and having to change industry is incredibly destabilizing. Most Americans donāt have more than a couple thousand in savings, let alone a few months of expenses. Bragging about jobs created with the CHIPS act or other legislation isnāt comforting to people who live in towns that arenāt a recipient of that investment.
I think democrats need to expand social programs and remove pointless means-testing that excludes a lot of working families from benefits (and pits them against working class families in urban centers). The more socialized benefits available to small town workers, the less pressure there will be to remain employed in a dying industry. That includes childcare, healthcare, housing, food; basically everything theyāre afraid to campaign on because republicans will accuse them of being radical socialists. And they really need to stop responding to fears about job losses in small town industries by bragging about job creation in other industries.
The alternativeās are all less appealing to a socialist - a lot of unions are pushing tarrifs on foreign goods, cutting environmental regulation, ect. You canāt win those voters by creating jobs elsewhere - you really need to convince those voters that they arenāt going to be left behind if/when their townās industry goes belly-up, and saying ātough luck, move and change industriesā is only going to radicalize them further. Especially when unemployment benefits are covered in all kinds red tape and are exceedingly difficult to apply for and stay on.
As far as legislation specific to labor protections: they need to campaign on the legislation theyāve already put forward. The PRO act is an excellent bill, but iāve not heard Harris or any top democratic leadership actually campaign on it or push it in public.
He represents their interests, itās his literal fucking job. Be grateful he didnāt follow the popular opinion of his members and endorse trump. I would also mention that their support of trump is pretty heavily represented in PA, WI, and MI - all states that democrats really need to win. They shouldnāt be burning bridges with Teamsters.
Labor protections are a definitionally-left issue. I want democrats to bend left
There absolutely is a difference in political ideology, but our disagreement isnāt over whether āthe left is more aligned with workerās rightsā or not. We disagree about whether or not direct action ought to be targeted at the democrats at all, and thatās something I donāt think weāll see eye-to-eye on.