Firefighters’ Union Backs Away From Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

[magical thyme]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/us/politics/firefighters-union-backs-away-from-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton.html?_r=1

The International Association of Fire Fighters, one of the country’s more politically powerful unions, has abandoned its initial plans to endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, according to union sources.

Harold A. Schaitberger, the union’s general president, informed Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, in a telephone call on Monday. According to a union official, Mr. Schaitberger told Mr. Mook that the executive board and rank-and-file members — the latter were recently polled — did not support a Clinton endorsement.

The impetus for Mr. Schaitberger’s call to Mr. Mook were conversations about the endorsement at the board’s meetings in mid-September, when board members expressed interest in the possibility that Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. would join the Democratic field.....

....But two major unions, the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, have said they will hold off on an endorsement until they have completed the process of consulting with their members. Union leaders have said the decision has as much to do with Mr. Sanders as with Mr. Biden’s looming decision about whether to enter the race.

[reformist2]

1. Why in this day and age don't unions let their *members* decide who to endorse???

[djean111]

2. I wondered that, myself. So much more information is available about the candidates now. Maybe that

is the point?

It does not mean the members will vote for the politician endorsed (the only way to ensure that, again, is to collect and fill out mail-in or absentee ballots), it just means the union heads will spend union dues supporting a politician. These days, the correct way to announce a union endorsement seems to be "the union leaders are endorsing so-and so".

IMO, either poll all the members, or at least wait until after a debate or two to do a poll. Wouldn't that be more democratic? Oooh, I just made myself laugh. And it looks bad, really, when the union leaders announce an endorsement really early, and the rank and file object. Right now, it looks like the intent is to lock up the big money, the endorsements, and the delegates, well ahead of any debates or the usual campaigning. Which is not democratic, and seems to be causing a lot of resentment. And playing the victim card doesn't really work any more ("it is not really union members!&quot . A basic understanding of social media negates that.

I would never support a candidate based on endorsements. And this bullshit of spouting that endorsements are more than just endorsing a candidate, of spouting than an endorsement means that a Congress will not work with any of the other candidates - is just total bullshit. Really, just switch that "but Congress really must dislike Bernie!" crap to another candidate. So - Congress won't work with O'Malley or Biden, either? They are endorsing Hillary because they dislike everyone else? I don't think so. That is so lame.

That is saying, essentially, that the Democrats endorsing Hillary are no better than the GOP who stated up front that they would not work with Obama.

Looks to me like someone's entire campaign is built on name recognition and Pledge-y Things.

[seaglass]

3. Do you know how many firefighters are Republicans? Be careful what you wish for. Unions endorse

based on who has done/will do the most for the union as a whole.

This might provide some insight (and I don't think it's the wrong way to look at an endorsement):

"...we are guided by an important principle — we support those who support our union, the issues important to the work you do, and the livelihood of our members’ families.

The IAFF didn’t decide who to endorse based on Second Amendment issues, or a candidate’s position on abortion, prayer in schools or same sex marriage. Those issues are critical, personal issues for our members to decide on their own, but they are not the business of this union.

The IAFF focuses on issues that affect fire fighter jobs and economic security. We look for someone with a proven ability to work across the political aisle to get things done. Someone who will do everything in their power to make sure we are protecting Americans here in America by giving fire fighters the tools and personnel needed to do their job safely and effectively under the most dangerous conditions."

http://www.iaff.org/about/gp/SeptOct07GPColumn.htm

Oh and by the way, this was when they endorsed Chris Dodd in the primary.

[reformist2]

4. If the actual firefighters wanted to endorse, let's say Jeb, well good for them! #democracyisgood

I'll take bottom-up democracy over top-down authoritarianism every time, even if it doesn't always produce the results I want.

[seaglass]

5. The actual firefighters are free to VOTE for Jeb or anyone they please. Why would a union endorse

someone who does not support unions? That's just dumb.

[reformist2]

6. But at least it would reflect, you know, the will of the actual union members?

I'm all for the union leadership providing literature and holding meetings to discuss which candidates they should all support as a union. Even if the leadership wanted to "educate" or "steer" the rank-and-filers toward a candidate, that's fine with me.

But in the end, the endorsement should be determined the way a union ratifies any contract, by voting.

[seaglass]

8. We disagree, I believe unions should remain strong and to do that - if they are going to

endorse anyone it needs to be someone who supports unions. Union members don't vote on legislation that union leaders are working to get passed, they vote for leaders to represent their best interests.

On edit: and clearly from this article, the sentiment of union members is being considered, that's pretty much why it is rumored that they are not endorsing Hillary - yet. It's pretty clear that they are waiting for Biden to make a decision.

[7962]

7. A brave and admirable statement.

It amazes me how so many want freedom to choose unless the choice isnt what they like. Thats what we have to deal with when we HAVE freedom.
Maybe allow the members to vote on who to endorse. What would be wrong with that?

[reformist2]

9. Thanks. I was a little afraid people would mistake my comment as being pro-Repug!

[BlueWaveDem]

10. Members can endorse whoever they choose at the ballot box.

Union officials are elected by members. It works the same way we elect representatives.

[Dustlawyer]

11. Because a lot of these old union bosses need to go. They have been in power for a

long time and have grown accustom to doing whatever they want. They are not close to their own membership in many cases (not all). That is why many union members support Republicans, they have not been educated by their own union about working conditions before unionization. Many unions are like Swiss Cheeze in that their rank and file has groups that are not strong participants because of corrupt and/out of touch union leadership, members have fallen victim to RW media, among other things.

[reformist2]

12. That's such a good point. If union members stray, it shows the leadership isn't doing their job.

[7962]

13. And in many cases, those leaders have become part of the 1%

some unions have leadership with ridiculously high wages and compensation

[askew]

14. Because then Hillary would get 0 endorsements from unions.

There is a reason Hillary's team is pushing NEA, NFT and others to endorse her without member input.