406

United Steelworkers union endorses Biden (thehill.com)

submitted 7 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -16 points 7 months ago

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.”

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.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 37 points 7 months ago

Clever progression

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)

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 6 points 7 months ago

yeah wtf was that astroturf ass top comment?

thank you for this breakdown 🙏

[-] Ashyr@sh.itjust.works 25 points 7 months ago

How could it be anything else? A union that forces its members to vote a certain way would be illegal.

[+] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -13 points 7 months ago

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.

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

[+] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

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.

this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2024

406 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19088 readers

1647 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News