United Steelworkers officially endorsed President Biden for the 2024 election, after hinting earlier this week they would be backing him over former President Trump. The 1.2 million-member un…
There has been controversy before where Unions endorse a candidate, and then a few days later we find out it was just union leadership picking a favorite.
The union’s endorsement was the culmination of a months-long process that included surveying USW members regarding their top priorities. The union also sent prospective presidential candidates in both parties a detailed questionnaire to determine where each of them stands on key issues affecting working people.
"Our members told us that they value retirement security, affordable health care and labor laws that support our ability to form unions and negotiate strong contracts,” said McCall. “President Biden’s record on all these issues speaks for itself. He also laid out a strong plan for building on this momentum well into the future.”
So in 2016 a bunch of unions endorsed Hillary and everyone celebrated.
Then a few days later we started hearing about the only union members who wanted her in the primary was the heads who had been getting wined and dined by her campaign.
There was a large public outcry and unions said they’d do better.
They’re now asking for a sample survey on issues, taking candidates at their word, and then making ng an endorsement.
It’s better than it was, but nowhere near as good as letting union members submit a vote if they want and whoever gets the most wins the unions endorsement.
I don’t know how you thought at any point I meant unions could force their members to vote a certain way. What I meant is these endorsements are supposedly to literally be the union as a whole endorsing the candidate that represents them most, rather than u ion leadership trying to sway their members vote
I don’t know what weird thing you linked because I’m not downloading random files from someone without a shift key, and I highly recommend no one else download random files either
But consider the fucked up part was 2016, and there’s only been one election cycle since…
It feels like you’re trying to argue that because shit got a tiny bit better, we’re not allowed to ever ask for it to keep being fixed
Which is pretty much the neoliberals national slogan.
Stuff was worse once, so nothing can get better until it’s gets worse again
Sorry For Not Using The Shift Key I Hope This Is Better.
You Are Simply Asking The Union To Give Up Its Power By Having It Just Host Another Unsecure Election Based On Publicly Available Information Its Constituents Already Know. The Union Is Able To Provide A Service By Using Its Power To Get Answers Directly From Candidates Without Needing To Rely On Fallible Media Channels. (edit: think of the service debate moderators provide)
And, As You Admit Yourself, The Union Is Comparing Candidate Answers With Their Voting Record. So It’s Not Like Candidates Can Just Lie On The Questionaire.
tldr it seems like you are spreading FUD or something, unions have been doing this exact thing for ages lmao.
Union leadership doesn’t always represent their members well (true)
Union leadership didn’t represent their members well in this case (not proven, just asserted)
They obviously didn’t look at what Biden actually did, including some specific things listed in the article, because they wouldn’t care about that kind of thing or deal with it as part of their working day (false)
Republicans are more progressive than Biden (the total-nonsense statement that serves to throw a smokescreen of confusion around any factual discussion surrounding the earlier more coherent statements)
There has been controversy before where Unions endorse a candidate, and then a few days later we find out it was just union leadership picking a favorite.
https://m.usw.org/news/media-center/releases/2024/usw-endorses-joe-biden-for-reelection-as-president
So basically all this means is Biden gave the right promises.
Lots of Republicans when asked about specific issues are a lot more progressive than Biden. They just will never vote anything besides R.
So this feels less like an endorsement from the 1.8 million members, and more of an advertisement to them.
How could it be anything else? A union that forces its members to vote a certain way would be illegal.
I might not have done a good job summarizing, here’s an old article
https://www.labornotes.org/2019/09/members-demand-voice-their-unions-presidential-endorsements
So in 2016 a bunch of unions endorsed Hillary and everyone celebrated.
Then a few days later we started hearing about the only union members who wanted her in the primary was the heads who had been getting wined and dined by her campaign.
There was a large public outcry and unions said they’d do better.
They’re now asking for a sample survey on issues, taking candidates at their word, and then making ng an endorsement.
It’s better than it was, but nowhere near as good as letting union members submit a vote if they want and whoever gets the most wins the unions endorsement.
I don’t know how you thought at any point I meant unions could force their members to vote a certain way. What I meant is these endorsements are supposedly to literally be the union as a whole endorsing the candidate that represents them most, rather than u ion leadership trying to sway their members vote
Which is what this is.
your expectation for how this should work is flawed and totally unrealistic?
yes, what happened in 2019 with Clinton was unacceptable.
but the methodology for determining this usw endorsement seems totally standard and has precedent. like, this isn’t new or strange at all.
edit: oclabor.org is the orange county labor federation. the linked pdf is a candidate questionnaire from 2021.
I don’t know what weird thing you linked because I’m not downloading random files from someone without a shift key, and I highly recommend no one else download random files either
But consider the fucked up part was 2016, and there’s only been one election cycle since…
It feels like you’re trying to argue that because shit got a tiny bit better, we’re not allowed to ever ask for it to keep being fixed
Which is pretty much the neoliberals national slogan.
Sorry For Not Using The Shift Key I Hope This Is Better.
You Are Simply Asking The Union To Give Up Its Power By Having It Just Host Another Unsecure Election Based On Publicly Available Information Its Constituents Already Know. The Union Is Able To Provide A Service By Using Its Power To Get Answers Directly From Candidates Without Needing To Rely On Fallible Media Channels. (edit: think of the service debate moderators provide)
And, As You Admit Yourself, The Union Is Comparing Candidate Answers With Their Voting Record. So It’s Not Like Candidates Can Just Lie On The Questionaire.
tldr it seems like you are spreading FUD or something, unions have been doing this exact thing for ages lmao.
Clever progression
yeah wtf was that astroturf ass top comment?
thank you for this breakdown 🙏