150

Former Teamsters leader criticizes non-endorsement of Harris for president (www.washingtonpost.com)

submitted 1 month ago by paf0@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] whygohomie@lemmy.world 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The Teamsters president is conflating Democratic refusal to support a blanket national right to strike with continued Republican support for union busting efforts that take away worker's rights and fund unions under the guise of an illusory "right to work," and does not actually guarantee a job or anything or the sort.

It's a tortured, strange, apples to oranges comparison so he can "both sides" the issue even though only one side is an existential threat to worker's rights and the concept of unions. It's a helluva position to take as the president of a union.

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 month ago

While I still think he's a dumb coward for not taking a side, I feel he's also playing a lot of internal political games too.

On a whole, Harris will be miles better for unions than the orange rapist, for sure. I guarantee he knows that. But far too many blue collar union members have either A. Bought the propaganda that Trump is the "working man's candidate" (lol), or B. Have internally made the decision that being racist against immigrants is more important than the very organization that allows them to maintain a living wage. So he finds himself stuck in the ugly position of needing to do the right then for the union, but also not wanting to lose support of the members and undermining the union's entire power structure in the future (and probably getting himself canned). The only winning move is not to play.

Let's also not forget this guy spoke at the RNC... which looks good to said members above but does not really commit to their side.

Meh. Guess the local chapters will have to pick up the slack, and I think they will.

[-] draneceusrex@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Agreed and well said. Kinda hard to endorse Harris when 60% of your members are MAGA. Amazing the congnative dissonance of these people...

[-] vanontom@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I assume the union voted for him, and can correct that vote (or non-vote) in due time. O'Brien seems content in driving a wedge between the only political party that supports them, for his own political gain. Much like T****, accidents happen and can be corrected, but the consequences and damages incurred may be expensive and long lasting. Vote carefully.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

If you told someone who fell into a coma in 1964 and just woke up that Hoffa was the good guy and RFK the bad one, he’d think you were nuts.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago

Washington Post - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Washington Post:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/09/20/teamsters-jim-hoffa-harris-endorse/

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024

150 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19089 readers

1536 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