AOC's attack on Teamsters leadership shows just how much unions are going to matter in the election
AOC's attack on Teamsters leadership shows just how much unions are going to matter in the election
Both Harris and Trump are aiming to win over the union rank and file, whose support will be consequential in November.
You're viewing a single thread.
y'all remember when AOC was the lefty being punched at? Now she's the one always punching left. I used to want her for pres too sheesh.
Punching left at the guy who attended the RNC?
At the guy who tried to represent his union, that was 60% in favor of Trump so rather than endorse him declined to endorse any candidate?
Yes we are in fact talking about the same person. AOC is stupid to call him out as his reasoning is sound and his non-dorsement helps the D party more than a trump one.
Do you really think he should endorse Harris when his members are only 35% in favor of his doing so? I have a hunch his members would take issue with that
But if your argument is that he went to the RNC as an appeal to teamsters who support Trump (aka not lefties), and that he is also choosing not to endorse either candidate on behalf of those teamsters, then that isn’t an appeal to further-left-than-democrats politics, it’s an appeal to centrism.
My point then being
Now she’s the one always punching left
Doesn’t really make sense in this context
I suppose you have a point. Maybe punching left is not accurate.
Thing is tho he didn't go to the RNC l as an appeal to teamsters, he asked both RNC and DNC to be a speaker and only the RNC called back. DNC ghosted his ass.
When at the RNC, he spoke about the importance of both parties to respect workers rights. He and other execs went to both camps (and biden before he stepped down) as they always do to try and extract promises in return for an endorsement.
They didn't get any promises from either camp though. He could have gone with his "constituents" polling numbers and endorsed Trump but he did not.
He was the first acting teamster president to ever speak at the RNC, that’s a huge deal regardless of whether he was also expecting to speak at the DNC. Especially given how anti-union the republican party generally is.
Either it was an appeal to conservative teamsters, or he himself is quietly moderate or conservative.
I was literally just saying in another thread that I didn’t know much about O’Brien…well now I do! Thanks stranger!
If you understand 'left' to simply mean 'democrat', then sure? But I think in this context 'left' means 'working class solidarity'.
Teamsters shopping around with both parties makes sense when you understand their affiliation to be less about party allegiances and more about securing the best conditions for their union. Especially considering Teamsters refused to endorse either party even while their members seem to lean Republican.
I don’t simply understand ‘left’ to mean ‘democrat’, I’m aware that there are people left of democrats.
Being “Left” encompasses more than just solidarity with the working class, but even specifically in this context, being the first acting teamster president to speak at the conference of a party that is historically anti-worker is…at best, naive. It could be seen as a way to pressure the GOP to care about unions, but they don’t care about unions, and speaking at their conference as a union president just gives a stronger surface-level impression to voters that they might.
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. That's a simple narrative to fix, if they were interested.
Being “Left” encompasses more than just solidarity with the working class
Not to a fucking union, there isn't. Literally their only job is collective bargaining, and threatening to withhold support to gain concessions is famously their most useful tool.
Sure, it could be to pressure the GOP to care about unions, or it could be to pressure democrats to commit to more protections.
If that’s 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. That's 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 isn't.
Yes, but the statement you’re replying to was a general statement on leftism. That’s why I follow that up with “Even in this context …”
Literally their only job is collective bargaining, and threatening to withhold support to gain concessions is 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 don’t play ball with workers’ rights is another.
I mean, what’s the play exactly? “Give us even more union protections or I’m gonna help the other guys who definitely don’t give a damn?” 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 don’t play ball with workers’ 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 company's bottom line, potentially endorsing the other candidate works in the same way. We wouldn't 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 couldn't 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 union's interests, even if that means getting it from the Republicans, if they are "playing ball". (The teamsters are a union for a very conservative group of members; it's not out of the question that Trump might grant some very targeted concessions to that group in order to shore up his base)
That's why it's crazy that the democrats aren't making an effort to be more pro-union - in most other ways, democrats are the obvious harm-reduction choice. But let's not pretend as if union protections haven't 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 you’re replying to was a general statement on leftism. That’s why I follow that up with “Even in this context …”
AOC shouldn't 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 doesn't have personal reasons for ignoring those broader goals, but that doesn't mean what she's doing isn't punching left.
It's 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.
Whoops ya posted dis twice
That made me chuckle, you have a fair point. But again, withholding support is one thing, and speaking at the RNC with republicans who don’t play ball with workers’ 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 company's bottom line, potentially endorsing the other candidate works in the same way. We wouldn't 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 couldn't 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 union's interests, even if that means getting it from the Republicans, if they are "playing ball". (The teamsters are a union for a very conservative group of members; it's not out of the question that Trump might grant some very targeted concessions to that group in order to shore up his base)
That's why it's crazy that the democrats aren't making an effort to be more pro-union - in most other ways, democrats are the obvious harm-reduction choice. But let's not pretend as if union protections haven't 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 you’re replying to was a general statement on leftism. That’s why I follow that up with “Even in this context …”
AOC shouldn't 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 doesn't have personal reasons for ignoring those broader goals, but that doesn't mean what she's doing isn't punching left.
It's 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, it’d be ludicrous to expect that support from the GOP, because they’ve 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 I’m asserting that it’s 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 republicans necessarilycouldn't 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 union's interests, even if that means getting it from the Republicans, if they are "playing ball". (The teamsters are a union for a very conservative group of members; it's 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 unions…they could also offer to lower prescription drug prices and make school lunches free for grade schoolers. They’re not gonna do any of those things, b/c they don’t wanna do any of those things and they haven’t wanted to do any of those things in at least 40 years. I’ll accept cited evidence to the contrary, otherwise we can agree to disagree.
That's why it's crazy that the democrats aren't making an effort to be more pro-union - in most other ways, democrats are the obvious harm-reduction choice. But let's not pretend as if union protections haven't 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 party’s 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 “no u” lol. What reasons does a group with specific labor interests have to endorse a party that’s 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 shouldn't be blaming Teamsters for agitating for better labor policy, and doing so absolutely ispunching left, because the thing Teamsters is interested in is a politically-left objective. Not that AOC doesn't have personal reasons for ignoring those broader goals, but that doesn't mean what she's doing isn't punching left.
Look. I don't know very much about Sean O’Brien. I’m 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, he’s hurting union workers. From that lens, AOC questioning his leadership isn’t punching left - she’s either punching a guy who’s actually to her right (for reasons outside workers’ rights) or punching a guy who might as well be.
And one more thing: at the end of the day, she’s critical of the guy, not the mission. She’s not saying “workers shouldn’t have more protections”, she’s saying “I question the leadership of this guy whose job it is to get workers more protections”. And quite frankly I agree with that.
Edit: y’know how I said I don’t know much about Sean O’Brien? Well thanks to another lemmyer, now I do!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/31/teamsters-racial-discrimination-lawsuit
So yeah, if there’s an ounce of truth to this, it speaks to the nagging feeling I have that he’s the kind of guy who’s a probably secretly a conservative for…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:
Edit: y’know how I said I don’t know much about Sean O’Brien? Well thanks to another lemmyer, now I do!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/31/teamsters-racial-discrimination-lawsuit
So yeah, if there’s an ounce of truth to this, it speaks to the nagging feeling I have that he’s the kind of guy who’s a probably secretly a conservative for…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 it's the reason I'm not particularly interested in having this debate with you. There have been many labor groups and unions in the US's 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. Here's 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 shouldn't be surprising that there would be discrimination within it. But that's 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 don't think we'll see eye-to-eye on this. It isn't as simple as 'democrats are more labor friendly' - 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.
You don't understand - I'm told that not endorsing Harris is, in fact, an endorsement of Trump
Criticizing the democrats for something the Republicans also do is only something a Russian shill would do
I'm getting a little scared at how quickly they're radicalizing. Lookit the DVs and ignorance of extremely recent history itt like for real it doesn't seem like there's brakes on this train. Hold me?
Nah, this is more their normal speed.
When their candidate was looking worryingly weak they were less militant about denying criticism because they couldn't afford to discard leftist support (and they were feeling extremely insecure about their chances). Now that their polling is strong they're returning to their usual 'fuck them leftist losers' attitude.
Most mature adults learn from their experiences, and change their behavior based on what they learned. What we’re seeing is a young politician with raw talent learn how to wield her power. If that rubs you the wrong way so be it, but she is one of the most effective political communicators we have, and she’s only getting better. Politics isn’t just about what you say and to whom, it’s about how you say things and how you leverage your influence to build coalitions that can get things done. She’s learning all the right lessons, and I’m loving it.
I'm happy you feel represented by her! It aint so happy here in my corner, i had hoped when she broke out and was buttin heads with the establishment Ds she n the squad world be a strong coalition to pull a bit closer to where i wish it was. Anyway have a good one :)
Do you live in her district? If not, she’s really not affecting you in any way.
So… if she doesn’t fall lock-step in line with your every agenda, you turn on her? Please stop wondering why people don’t take leftists seriously.
I don’t think you understand quite what’s going on.
Can you please explain what's going on?
Edit: below, tldr
Oh I’ve seen people try and explain it to you. Your comment history is full of you saying shit like this and then you refusing to accept being corrected.
I’m not about to waste my time like you did theirs in the effort to explain it. So, go ahead and invoke the tired internet rule of “I in because you refuse to entertain my argument.”
I’m not going to bite, bud.
If you've read my comment history you can see what i understand and (i assume thru your comment) what i do not.
If youre uninterested in educating me why did you comment? Is there a purpose i don't understand along with this issue which i clearly don't get?
I am prepared to be educated.
Nope. That’s not going to work. Nice try though.
So am i to understand the only purpose you ever had in commenting to me was to insult me?
No. Just to be counted among the many voices that have had to tell you that you’re wrong. And don’t think I didn’t notice your little meme edit there. You’re about as bad-faith as they get with that shit.
Additionally, per your baseless accusation- I don’t think I insulted you at all, I simply stated that you are wrong. But now that I see you ramping up into victimhood, I’m going to end this here.
Could you please explain to me why you believe this is the case? I guess I'm confused and want to understand your position.
She's always been a sheepdog.