President Obama, The Labor Movement, And The Next Four Years

With the election finally behind us, many in the labor community may have a sense of feeling that we have come back from the brink of the abyss.  While a Romney administration would surely have been a nightmare for workers, it will be interesting to see if Obama's second term will yield any big advances for the labor movement.

Answers to many of the questions that labor leaders have about the next four years depend largely on how much the Obama Administration believes it owes to unions for the success of its ground game.  In Ohio and Wisconsin, the benefit of the recent recall fights was blatantly obvious, as Team Romney was no match for Team Obama when it came to GOTV operation.

The real question for the next four years is: how will Big Labor spend whatever political capital it may have earned with the Obama Administration?  One would have to imagine that pushing the Employee Free Choice Act would have to be a high priority on the list.  Unfortunately, this is very unlikely, as Obama has shown a tendency towards Clintonian Triangulation in the past, and there is no reason to believe this will change.

So which other agenda items should labor push for in the coming months?  One thing is for sure - we better make it count.

In Solidarity,

Joseph

The Great Disappearing Act

No, I'm not referring to Candidate Obama, or Medicare under Paul Ryan's budget.

I'm referring to the phenomenon that occurs with the staff of labor organizations every time there is an election.  If you are a union member, have you ever noticed that your union representation becomes as hard to find as a unicorn during election season?  The local office is as empty as a church on Sunday morning - unless it is being used as a campaign office.

 

The reason for this is one of the worst kept secrets in the world of organized labor.  Every election cycle, in direct conflict with FEC law, union staff are forced to "volunteer" for whoever the Democratic candidate happens to be.  In presidential election cycles, this can start as early as September, and in mid-term or special elections, it can start in October.

I experienced this firsthand during my time with a certain purple entity during the Senate Bill 5/Issue 2 election.  Instead of representing our members as we should have, we were required to work exclusively out of a campaign office.  Everything else became secondary, unless you had an actual arbitration hearing.  In full disclosure, the S.B. 5 recall was somewhat justified, as it directly affected almost a third of the members of our local who were state employees.  However this is commonplace in presidential and statewide races where this is not the case. So, if you happen to have a contract that might be coming up for negotiation, it might be a little concerning if all of the sudden, everyone is off doing political work instead of representing members. 

This is not limited to SEIU.  This is standard procedure with virtually every major labor union, with the exception of the United Electrical Workers(UE) and the National Union of HealthCare Workers(NUHW),  who prefer direct action to wasting its time with PACs.

I'm not saying the unions should not be involved in the political realm.  It is necessary and important, as elected officials have direct influence on the livelihood of union members.  What I am saying is that a union's involvement in politics should not come at the expense of member representation, which is almost always the case.

In Solidarity,

Joseph

Deja Vu In Wisconsin

I feel like I've already written this entry before...

My autopsy of the failed attempt to recall Scott Walker in Wisconsin is very similar to my autopsy of the legislative recalls in Wisconsin last year. 

1.  As was the case last year, Big Labor allowed the Democratic Party to run the show.  This is somewhat understandable because unlike Senate Bill 5 in Ohio, this was an election with candidates, not an issue election.  But with so much at stake for labor in Wisconsin - AFSCME has just lost the right to represent workers in the state in which it was founded - one would think that labor would have taken the reins from the DNC.

2.  Labor and the Democrats relied on the same outdated ground game that fell short last year.  I wrote about this at length in the entry linked above. 

3.  President Obama's lack of involvement will undoubtedly be scrutinized, and for good reason.  Labor is still waiting for Candidate Obama who promised to walk the picket line with us to make good on his promise.  This is one of the main reasons The Virtual Picket Line has endorsed Stewart Alexander for President in 2012.

While Big Labor will attempt to deflect criticisms such as the ones I mentioned earlier by pointing the finger to the Citizens United decision rendered by the Supreme Court, I reject this argument as a cheap cop-out.  While Citizens United makes a mockery of our democracy, it is hardly the reason Labor and the Democrats fell short yesterday. 

Yes, Barrett was outspent by a 7-to-1 margin by Walker.  In any other case, I would probably agree that the disparate spending levels heavily influenced the outcome.  I don't believe that to be the case in this election.  When I was on the ground in Wisconsin for last year's round of recalls, it became very clear to me that the the level of undecided voters was virtually zero.  People had not only made up their minds about the candidates up for recall at the time, but on Scott Walker as well. 

Now if Scott Walker had been up for recall last summer, he likely would have lost by a wide margin.  But as we know in politics, timing is everything.  Huffington Post had a very good post explaining that exit polls showed that the Walker campaign simply did a better job turning out its vote than Labor and the Democrats did.  This goes back to explanation of the outdated ground game of Labor and the Democrats on Number 2.

If Labor does not learn from this lesson, things could start to get really rough in other states, especially states that are not as moderate as Wisconsin.

In Solidarity,

Joseph

Post Mortem in Wisconsin: How Labor Missed Another Opportunity

Let me be the first to say this: Labor could have won last night.  Adding to its ever-growing string of missed opportunities, Big Labor fired yet another round into its already bullet-riddled feet. 

Yes, winning two races in GOP territory is a big accomplishment, and should be lauded.  However, the avoidable strategic missteps that kept Democrats from winning a crucial 3rd race cannot be ignored.  Allow me to present a few observations I made on the ground in Wisconsin:


1.  Labor once again let the Democratic Party run the show.  Imagine if Labor would have run its own candidates as independents.  This would have neutralized heavy party-line voting in the GOP strongholds.

2.  Resources were wasted in two Districts that everyone, especially the Democratic establishment, knew were never in play.  I'm not saying you don't make an effort, but you don't waste money and resources by opening offices and using political operatives where you know you have zero chance of coming within 7 points. Districts 10 and 2 should have been run by local volunteers - kind of the way any districts in the state of Virginia that are west of I-81 are run without paid staff.

3.  Democrats relied on outdated ground-game strategy that effectively turned out the vote against them in stronger GOP districts. When you're running in a district that is heavily stacked in the other direction, you can win by getting your people out to vote, and try to get everyone else to stay home.  By harassing independents, who tend to break Republican, you incite them to get out to the polls and vote against you.  If Democrats would have focused only on union households in these precincts, and left moderate Republicans alone, they would have had an outside shot at an upset by winning the turnout game.  Unfortunately, they beat moderates over the head with as many as 7-8 house visits in some cases.  I believe this in effect turned out the GOP vote in areas where the GOP did not even have a committed ground game.


4.  Labor allowed themselves to be to spread out.  While the Democratic establishment is expected to try to compete everywhere, the Labor Community should have targeted its efforts on the 3-4 Districts that had the best prospects for winning.  Unfortunately, as I stated in point number 1, Labor allowed the Democratic establishment to run the show and waste valuable resources on races that were not winnable. 


Conclusion:  I believe that if Labor had committed its resources only in Districts 32, 18, 8, and 14, we would be looking at a Wisconsin State Senate with a Democratic majority.

Unfortunately, we will never know.  There is always January, and a certain governor who will be eligible for recall.  I believe that is a fight we can win.

In Solidarity,

Joseph