Saying they’re highly frustrated with the failure of national Democrats to put up stronger resistance to Republican proposals to weaken the organized labor movement, some of the country’s largest labor unions are scaling back their financial support to the Democratic Party.
Last month the 300,000-member International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) announced it would no longer be giving money to federal candidates, instead focusing its energy and resources into the fight over collective bargaining at the state level. At the time, Harold Schaitberger, the president of IAFF said, “I have not seen our friends in these incredible attacks against us across the country. Where are our friends in Congress? Where have they been to fight back on our behalf with the same voracity and the same discipline of our enemies?”
Off the heels of that announcement by the IAFF comes this statement from Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO:
“It doesn’t matter if candidates and parties are controlling the wrecking ball or simply standing aside,” said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, on Friday. “The outcome is the same either way. If leaders aren’t blocking the wrecking ball and advancing working families’ interests, working people will not support them.”
While I certainly agree with organized labor putting more time, energy, and resources into state races, cutting off funding to the national Democratic Party certainly seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face, but I’m sure cutting down funding to Democrats nationally will certainly get their attention.
But it’s not like they’re not going to stop spending millions on elections (instead of directly supporting their members). And it’s not as if they won’t still spend about the same amount on almost exclusively Democratic candidates.
To some extent, I’d bet it’s as much as anything about garnering more power & influence for themselves directly, rather than via the DNC.
Locke,
What do you mean by ” instead of directly supporting their members?”
A whole bunch of republican voting public union members have just learned, the hard way, why their union has historically supported pro-labor politicians, usually democrats.
It seems to me that spending money electing public officials who support workers rights is direct support for the unions members.
I guess we just have a different definition of “direct” then. By directly supporting their members, I’m talking about member benefits like assistance programs, educational programs – job training, general interest stuff like financial seminars and tuition grants.
I won’t argue that donating to candidates that support their goals is of some benefit in general, that money goes through a wringer that includes greedy, unscrupulous politicians pockets and unless there’s a quid pro quo, there’s no guarantee to get anything out of it. Hell, a lot of Congress will turn around & take money from the other side too.
If the unions were to stick with the direct assistance, and stay out of campaign funding – or split into two completely separate entities, I wouldn’t have a problem with the mandatory dues. No one should be forced to give money to politicians they disagree with.
I can only speak to my union, but I’ve heard AFSCME isn’t alone in offering a good amount of direct support to its members, in addition to its political advocacy on their behalf.
Well first off, it sure seems to be basic logic that if Unions are being weakened and their members being reduced by extreme budget cuts etc. they’re just not going to be able to “afford” the Democrats anymore.
How COULD Unions keep up the same level of financial support if they themselves are mere shadows of their former selves? Really? they should make Dem Party support Job One rather than gritty personal survival? That seems rather a weirdly Party favoring/apologist view than populist/realistic to me.
Next, if you continually pay for a “service”, in this case representation, in other cases, say Cable TV, yet you get no “return” on your money – how long do you keep paying hoping that SOMEDAY the cable guy will actually hook you up?
I do think though, that there will be spite,but spite from the party. Democrats will say “fine then, if you thought THAT was non-representation, cut us off from your money stream and you’ll REALLY see what non-representation feels like”.
I think that’s really where this is headed.
I don’t think the Unions are cutting off their noses to spite their faces, the Democrats will be the ones cutting off the noses because the “faces” aren’t behaving properly.
In the end, the Unions really should tighten up and encourage their members to survive tough financial times ahead. That means curtailing expenses, and the Dem Party is an expense. if WI or US education faces drastic cuts, it is simply going to be felt on down the line as there is less money to be spent by those people involved in education or other types of Public service. No brainer.
It is actually The Democrat Party that is cutting off it’s OWN nose to spite it’s OWN face.
Rachel Maddow and 8 million bloggers repeat that weakening Unions is meant to weaken the party, yet, the Party does not increase efforts for Unions.
Bam! Repugs win.
Blame the Unions for not being able to keep up Party support without losing a beat? ? mmm kay….well, I suppose they could “Eat Cake” while they continue to send money to the aristocracy.
Annie,
It’s the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. You don’t want to sound like John Boehner.
I agree that the Dems cut off their nose to spite their face, and I don’t understand it. Often open contempt for, and dismissal of, progressive independents, Greens and others doesn’t seem to me to be very ” big tent”, or very smart if you want to win elections.
But what do I know? I’m just a blog commenter.
I’m conflicted. I think for Unions and other progressives its lose lose. Third Party is perhaps no worse. Just saying.
Good, unions need to go away.