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.
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!
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.
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.
I have a lot I’d like to, but won’t, say about your comment, because it’s very dismissive of my entire reply, in favor of you choosing to dissect my motivations for adding a loosely-related footnote. I will say that most of your comment feels like I could boil it down to “you almost tricked me into taking your questions at face value, but then you said that O’Brien being racist might be sorta relevant, so clearly I have a broader understanding of…something…then you, so you’ll never see that I’m right”. You could clarify if you want, but I don’t really care.
That said, I’ll try to focus on your last couple sentences:
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.
If this is the entire point you’ve been driving at this whole time, then I still disagree with you, but I can respect your opinion. You might be right that we won’t see eye-to-eye, but not because of me probably not having a deeper understanding of “material relations being fundamental to political movements”, or you probably not having a deeper appreciation of “actual meat-and-bones policy being fundamental to the satisfaction of union members, both short-term and long-term”. I think you and I might just have different priorities, and I’m fine leaving it at that.
All that said, I wanna circle back one more time on the actual debate that started this thing, because it wasn’t “what is the direct course of action unions are justified in taking to optimize worker satisfaction”. It was literally something as nebulous as “Did AOC ‘punch left’ by criticizing O’Brien”. OP already admitted he probably just chose the wrong words, which I respect. Can we at the very least agree, whether your personal answer to that question is yes or no, that suggesting AOC is “punching left” is a poorly-worded and/or insufficiently brief critique?
If this is the entire point you’ve been driving at this whole time, then I still disagree with you, but I can respect your opinion. You might be right that we won’t see eye-to-eye, but not because of me probably not having a deeper understanding of “material relations being fundamental to political movements”, or you probably not having a deeper appreciation of “actual meat-and-bones policy being fundamental to the satisfaction of union members, both short-term and long-term”.
Yes, that was my point. I think a lot of liberals get caught up in the electoralism of general elections, and get (maybe even understandably) offended when a group they thought should clearly be on ‘their side’ decides to make a statement against them, or even simply withhold an endorsement.
Sure, meat-and-bones policy is important for advancing working class interests (i’m not sure why you chose ‘worker satisfaction’, maybe this is further evidence of our ideological differences or maybe this is just me being pedantic, but ‘satisfaction’ sounds more like corporate HR jargon than the revolutionary language of class consciousness), but endorsements aren’t like straw-polls. Unions come from a bloody and cutthroat history of class struggle that have to negotiate with multi-billion dollar industries - an endorsement or even a signal of approval toward competition is just another way to gain leverage. As much as we would all really like to be able to just pick a party/ticket like picking a flavor of ice cream, that’s just not what class struggle is, least of all to a labor union.
All that said, I wanna circle back one more time on the actual debate that started this thing, because it wasn’t “what is the direct course of action unions are justified in taking to optimize worker satisfaction”. It was literally something as nebulous as “Did AOC ‘punch left’ by criticizing O’Brien”
Yes, I still think it is punching left, and I think @the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works was mistaken in walking it back. It would be one thing if she was making a point to advocate for democratic policy choices, but the comment from AOC in question was:
“When the Teamsters are in trouble, who do they call when we need to make sure that Teamsters pensions are bailed out? … It was Sean O’Brien calling Democrats for help”
I think that’s a petty and entitled thing to say to a union advocating for its members. This was in response to them simply declining to endorse either candidate because they “couldn’t get commitments on our issues”. Teamsters is perfectly within their right to withhold their endorsement in service of pushing for labor commitments from democrats even if you think they’re wrong, and the worst way to respond to that feedback is to throw a tantrum and complain that they’re being ungrateful.
Democrats really need support from union households in the swing states where Teamsters is reporting a trump advantage in their membership. They can’t afford to be throwing punches at them (even if you think it’s not punching left). What drives me crazy is that democrats have been willing to bend to a bunch of conservative issues in order to gain moderate republican support - this one issue that is objectively a leftist issue and involves a crucial block of voters in swing states is, what…? too radical?
I honestly don’t know anymore. dDmocratic politics have just lost all coherence as a left-wing political party. Maybe this is just a temporary change in messaging, but it really feels like they’re abandoning all pretense as a progressive party.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 …”
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?
deleted by creator
Whoops ya posted dis twice
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Yeah
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?
Again, what policies specifically?
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:
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.
I have a lot I’d like to, but won’t, say about your comment, because it’s very dismissive of my entire reply, in favor of you choosing to dissect my motivations for adding a loosely-related footnote. I will say that most of your comment feels like I could boil it down to “you almost tricked me into taking your questions at face value, but then you said that O’Brien being racist might be sorta relevant, so clearly I have a broader understanding of…something…then you, so you’ll never see that I’m right”. You could clarify if you want, but I don’t really care.
That said, I’ll try to focus on your last couple sentences:
If this is the entire point you’ve been driving at this whole time, then I still disagree with you, but I can respect your opinion. You might be right that we won’t see eye-to-eye, but not because of me probably not having a deeper understanding of “material relations being fundamental to political movements”, or you probably not having a deeper appreciation of “actual meat-and-bones policy being fundamental to the satisfaction of union members, both short-term and long-term”. I think you and I might just have different priorities, and I’m fine leaving it at that.
All that said, I wanna circle back one more time on the actual debate that started this thing, because it wasn’t “what is the direct course of action unions are justified in taking to optimize worker satisfaction”. It was literally something as nebulous as “Did AOC ‘punch left’ by criticizing O’Brien”. OP already admitted he probably just chose the wrong words, which I respect. Can we at the very least agree, whether your personal answer to that question is yes or no, that suggesting AOC is “punching left” is a poorly-worded and/or insufficiently brief critique?
Yes, that was my point. I think a lot of liberals get caught up in the electoralism of general elections, and get (maybe even understandably) offended when a group they thought should clearly be on ‘their side’ decides to make a statement against them, or even simply withhold an endorsement.
Sure, meat-and-bones policy is important for advancing working class interests (i’m not sure why you chose ‘worker satisfaction’, maybe this is further evidence of our ideological differences or maybe this is just me being pedantic, but ‘satisfaction’ sounds more like corporate HR jargon than the revolutionary language of class consciousness), but endorsements aren’t like straw-polls. Unions come from a bloody and cutthroat history of class struggle that have to negotiate with multi-billion dollar industries - an endorsement or even a signal of approval toward competition is just another way to gain leverage. As much as we would all really like to be able to just pick a party/ticket like picking a flavor of ice cream, that’s just not what class struggle is, least of all to a labor union.
Yes, I still think it is punching left, and I think @the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works was mistaken in walking it back. It would be one thing if she was making a point to advocate for democratic policy choices, but the comment from AOC in question was:
I think that’s a petty and entitled thing to say to a union advocating for its members. This was in response to them simply declining to endorse either candidate because they “couldn’t get commitments on our issues”. Teamsters is perfectly within their right to withhold their endorsement in service of pushing for labor commitments from democrats even if you think they’re wrong, and the worst way to respond to that feedback is to throw a tantrum and complain that they’re being ungrateful.
Democrats really need support from union households in the swing states where Teamsters is reporting a trump advantage in their membership. They can’t afford to be throwing punches at them (even if you think it’s not punching left). What drives me crazy is that democrats have been willing to bend to a bunch of conservative issues in order to gain moderate republican support - this one issue that is objectively a leftist issue and involves a crucial block of voters in swing states is, what…? too radical?
I honestly don’t know anymore. dDmocratic politics have just lost all coherence as a left-wing political party. Maybe this is just a temporary change in messaging, but it really feels like they’re abandoning all pretense as a progressive party.