If Union endorsements are not democratically decided, they mean nothing.

[Bonobo]

What else is there to say?

Otherwise it's just smoky backroom cigar shenaningans.

[oasis]

1. Well then, I guess that's that.

Bonobo has spoken.

[LWolf]

9. Bonobo has spoken

what so many union members who were not involved in their unions' endorsements are saying.

[Hortensis]

29. :) Not to worry. SCOTUS may fix this, or should I say, fix US.

"Will the Supreme Court Decide That Democrats Have Too Much Power?
This term, the justices will hear at least three cases that could upend the partisan balance of power."

As in, SHIFT IT TO THE GOP. Believe me, your problems are FAR larger than HRC.

This is from The Atlantic at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/supreme-court-arizona-evenwel-friedrichs/408400/

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Surely you'd be saying the same thing if Bernie was the one racking up the union endorsements. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Bernie has Union endorsements. So does Hillary. But Hillary is seeing some softening of support...

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 early support of a cross section of unions — most prominently the American Federation of Teachers, which endorsed Mrs. Clinton in July — had been a source of strength for the Clinton campaign. But in recent weeks, as Mrs. Clinton’s numbers in some polls have sagged and she has faced an increasingly formidable challenge from Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, some labor unions appear to have had second thoughts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/us/politics/firefighters-union-backs-away-from-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton.html
That hesitance is seen in other Unions as well....
"September 23, 2015 2:59 pm
Some of the nation’s top labor unions are holding off their endorsement of Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton in case Vice President Joe Biden enters the race.

Public sector labor juggernauts Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) decided to delay any endorsement in the Democratic Primary, according to Politico.

Supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I.) hailed the delay as a victory and attributed it as much to Biden’s influence on the race from the sidelines as Sanders’ momentum."
http://freebeacon.com/politics/two-unions-delay-clinton-endorsement/


Actual Labor Democrats heavily dig the fact that there is more than one Democratic candidate who can attract the support of Labor and who want that support. The very best years for our Party are years in which the Union endorsements are divided and when many are nonexistent due to members being split among Democratic candidates.
In 2008 cycle at this point in the process, Hillary had 5 Union endorsements. Today she has 2. In 08 cycle at this point Obama had 6. Today, no one has 5 or 6 and the total does not reach 6 of Unions that have endorsed so far.



Sanders has the largest Nurse's Union
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/politics/bernie-sanders-nurses-endorsement-2016/

[uponit7771]

24. "according to union sources"...sigh

[restorefreedom]

25. there is a difference between the membership and the leadership

i think that is the point of the op. bernie has a lot of support from union members, the workers. and that means a lot to me as a supporter. the elite leadership can endorse whomever they like. their voices, as far as i am concerned, are as individuals. they should not be coming out like they speak for others. people trying to speak for others does not sit well with me, no matter who they are endorsing.

[ibegurpard]

3. It's not practical

It would be like having an election for every piece of policy. However union members need to hold their leaders accountable just like voters do. Teachers unions endorsing a charter school advocate is totally self-defeating. Unions should support strong labor advocates. Obviously some house-cleaning needs to be done.

[Bonobo]

4. Using the internet would not be difficult.

I'm sure a massive union could figure it out.

[reformist2]

6. It would be very easy to have an online vote. There's no reason not to.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. I could set up the database and code needed to do it by email in under a day.

Even if you had millions of members.

You generate an email to every member with unique link-back codes, and register the first response (and first response only) from each member.

Give them a week or so to respond ( I admit I don't check my own email as often as I should.) and print out the totals.

[Enthusiast]

5. This is true.

[JonathanRackham]

7. Yes

My union made its endorsements without consulting the rank and file. Dues are mandatory and we have no say.

[dsc]

12. NO they aren't

if you don't want to be in the union you pay a fair share fee, none of which goes to political activity.

[stonecutter357]

8. you seem to not understand how unions work.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. But just on this matter ...

All other union executive committee decisions are either assented to, or go unnoticed/uncared about.

And I'm pretty certain, had the executive committee endorsed Bernie, there wouldn't be a single post calling the process, "undemocratic" .... just as there weren't in the preceding 20+ presidential endorsements.

[stonecutter357]

15. Welcome back and be careful we need you on DU.

[Starry Messenger]

19. +1000

[AtomicKitten]

10. I agree.

Each member gets one vote and they aren't obligated to vote with union leadership.

[dsc]

13. A couple of questions

One, did you have this complaint when the nurses endorsed Bernie? I know you didn't as I looked.

Two, are you wiling to pony up money for the elections you want them to have to satisfy your criteria.

Three, did you complain, ever about any union endorsing any candidate in the way that they have for literally ever. If so please link that real time complaint.

[Art_from_Ark]

17. At least the nurses' union polled their rank-and-file about the issues and candidates

and Bernie had overwhelming support from members.

http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/press/entry/nurses-endorse-sen.-bernie-sanders-for-president/

[dsc]

18. So did nearly every union which endorsed Hillary

the only one I know of who may not have was the NEA but that wasn't clear in the reporting. But the other unions, which Sanders supporters complained about repeatedly as being non Democratic, did poll their members just like the nurses did. Each and every one did. I notice you couldn't be bothered with the other questions, one doesn't need to wonder why.

[Art_from_Ark]

22. First of all, you didn't address those questions to me

I responded to the one that I had immediate knowledge about and was most pertinent to the OP.

[bigdarryl]

14. Yeah they mean nothing because Mrs.Clinton is getting more union endorsements if it was

Sanders getting the more union support it would mean a lot.I see how this game is being played

[Lurks Often]

20. You made someone mad

On Mon Oct 5, 2015, 08:47 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

If Union endorsements are not democratically decided, they mean nothing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251647955

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

So DU is anti-union now? Wtf? Things getter stranger here day by day....

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Oct 5, 2015, 08:52 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What was this alert for? Just one blow hard spouting their rhetoric. Nothing to get your panties in a bunch about.

I realize that the outcome of this alert falls completely on how the jury is divided. If supporters of one candidate are in the majority here, it will get hidden, while the supporters of the other will let it ride. Maybe I can be the voice of reason here.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: How is that comment anti-union? And nice try with "wtf?" and "...stranger here...". But grown ups won't buy that.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not sure what this alert is actually for. Don't like the opinion? Present a counter arguement....
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What a sad alert. The post is in no way anti-union. It is a criticism of union leadership not listening to what the rank and file union members are saying.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[HereSince1628]

21. Oh they mean -SOMETHING-

they just don't mean a demonstrable representation of the democratically determined will of the union membership.

[uponit7771]

23. Someone predicted that the unions would be under the bus too in a previous thread

[Fawke Em]

33. The unions aren't being thrown under the bus.

The leadership of some of them are being questioned because they don't seem to have polled their rank and file.

One thing about Bernie supporters is consistency: questioning the upper echelon who seem to push their own inter-political agendas over that of their members is not all that different that questioning the upper echelon in politics who also seem to push their own agendas at behest of their constituents.

[hrmjustin]

27. Union endorsements matter because of the ground work they do for the candidates.

[jeff47]

30. If the leadership goes against the rank-and-file, that groundwork does not happen.

After all, it's the rank-and-file that does the groundwork.

[hrmjustin]

31. And if the rank and file agrees then they do the groundwork.

I assume the members have a choice on whether they will help out or not.

[jeff47]

32. And this OP is not talking about that situation.

Apparently, the leadership of a few unions have endorsed against the wishes of their rank-and-file. At least, significant numbers of the rank-and-file are complaining.

Since there was nothing like polling or a vote before the endorsements, we have no idea what the rank-and-file actually support.

[hrmjustin]

34. Well there will always be disagreement on who to endorse.

[jeff47]

36. There isn't normally enough angry people to reach the media.

That's now happened more than once.

Again, the point of these endorsements is to get the "ground troops" of the unions. If the leadership doesn't do what the rank-and-file want, there's no ground troops.

It's actually in the candidate's best interest to make sure most of the rank-and-file agree with that endorsement. Otherwise, they're relying on an army that may not show up.

[hrmjustin]

37. There has always been people upset with their unions endorsement.

Nothing new.

[jeff47]

38. Guess I'll just quote my previous post since you didn't bother reading it.

There isn't normally enough angry people to reach the media.

That's now happened more than once.

Again, the point of these endorsements is to get the "ground troops" of the unions. If the leadership doesn't do what the rank-and-file want, there's no ground troops.

It's actually in the candidate's best interest to make sure most of the rank-and-file agree with that endorsement. Otherwise, they're relying on an army that may not show up.

[hrmjustin]

39. Social media makes it easier.

[jeff47]

40. Social media existed before now. (nt)

[hrmjustin]

41. And people complained before now.

Can you provevthere are more complaints about union endorsements?

[jeff47]

42. And with social media existing before now, and complaints before now

there was not enough anger from the rank-and-file over endorsements to reach the media.

That has now happened twice. That is new.

[hrmjustin]

43. Can you prove that or is that just an opinion?

[Smarmie Doofus]

28. UFT ( NYC Affiliate of AFT) honchos were elected by majority of *18%* of membership that actually voted.

In other words, 82% of active membership did not vote for the current leadership. ( i.e for the leadership that has endorsed Ms. Clinton.)

It ( i.e. leadership's share of the eligible vote ) was actually *lower* than that: a minority caucus took about 20% of votes cast - and counted.)

There is something profoundly wrong w. that picture.

[dsc]

44. yeah apparently your teachers were too freaking lazy to vote

and thus have no right whatsoever to complain. Sorry but too bad so sad.

[Smarmie Doofus]

45. Apparently so. I'm told the level of participation, however, is not unusual.

Or should I say, "non-participation". Relative to other unions, that is.

How does that compare w. NC?

[dsc]

47. we probably have a higher participation rate among those who are in the association

but the number in the association is way low. We are right to work here.

[Yupster]

35. Means lots of money

and free phone banks.

[hifiguy]

46. These same union leaders endorsed Bubba,

who immediately threw them under the bus, and Obama, who took a little bit longer to throw them under the bus. HRH will give them more of the same - no seat at the table, more bankster shenanigans, more education privatization, more jobs shipped overseas, and generally more of the same old Turd Way shit.

I think some people need to wise the fuck up.