Firefighters union halting federal contributions

[The Northerner]

WASHINGTON – The nation's largest firefighters union and one of the Democrats' most reliable sources of campaign money says it will quit donating to federal candidates this year because members of Congress are not doing enough to support organized labor.

International Association of Firefighters President Harold Schaitberger says there is a more urgent need to spend money defending anti-union measures sweeping GOP-controlled statehouses across the country.

Schaitberger wants the move to send a message that lawmakers shouldn't take firefighters' support for granted. He says members of Congress should be doing more to speak out against efforts in states to take away collective bargaining rights and weaken union clout.

The union and its 300,000 members are among the most influential and biggest-spending lobbying groups on Capitol Hill.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110426/ap_on_re_us/us_unions_campaign_cash

[montanacowboy]

1. Good for them

time these Dems see who supports them and who does not

[UrbScotty]

5. Yeah - let's teach them a lesson by letting Republicans get even MORE power!

:sarcasm:

:wtf:

[lunatica]

How about if the damn Democrats in Washington actually do something

to earn the backing of those who have been good to them? WTF indeed!

[UrbScotty]

49. Oh, like more jobs created in 2010 than in all of the Bush years?

Or healthcare/Wall Street/credit card reform?

Saving the auto industry (and gosh knows how many jobs), for which this President gets next to no credit?

[Ship of Fools]

56. agreed

Except certain people around here believe that there are 25 hours to a day and 8 days in a week, didn't you know? This was all supposed to be done by last summer (or was is spring?).

Timing is everything. My man BO understands it...

[WhiteTara]

79. I see both sides of this; but, how does one get

the attention of the elected officials?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[robinlynne]

96. that does not give the erpublicans more power. the Dems are giving repulicans more power.

I believe that is the point here.

[LanternWaste]

97. Quite often, an individual or an organization will give personal convictions a higher priority...

Quite often, an individual or an organization will give personal convictions a higher priority than political expediency. I would hope we all do that to a great extent...

:shrug:

[blondeatlast]

Good--it's beginning to look more an more like our real power lies in local government.

A very wise decision their part (they are great guys, too).

[UrbScotty]

7. Wise to not support those who support them?

[blondeatlast]

8. What has Congress done for them lately? Besides, all unions would benefit

from uniting to overturn or prevent the passage of Right to be Screwed (er, Work) laws which can only be done at the local level.

[UrbScotty]

29. Unions would benefit from replacing conservative 'Dems' with PROGRESSIVE Dems

in primaries.

Refusing to support Democrats? Look what that got us in 2010.

[blondeatlast]

40. THEY AREN'T REFUSING TO SUPPORT DEMOCRATS--they are just targeting local races

where they will have more effect and local politics is more beneficial to them in return.

[bvar22]

65. Like the Unions did in Arkansas in 2010?

The White House ridiculed LABOR for supporting the Pro-LABOR candidate in the Democratic Party,
and threw their support behind the virulently Anti-LABOR Blanche Lincoln.

You should read up on that incident.
The Democratic Party Leadership didn't earn ANY respect from LABOR over THAT fuck up.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

[Brickbat]

11. That's the issue right there.

The undermining of the teachers, the shameful treatment of public workers, and the complete and utter failure of any movement at all on EFCA haven't really been hallmarks of support these last few years.

[UrbScotty]

28. You're describing what the Republicans have done, not what the Democrats have done. (nt)

[Brickbat]

33. Now you're just talking funny talk.

Yes, yes -- that Arne Duncan, a real friend to unions.

[Donnachaidh]

50. Really? WHERE have they supported them recently?

The only sound from the national Dems during the Madison uproar was CRICKETS.

[leeroysphitz]

71. They do not need you to decide that for them and you aren't qualified to anyhow. n/t

[olegramps]

89. When I see Democrats call for tariffs, I will believe in them again.

They have done absolutely nothing to stop the massive out-sourcing of jobs. Obama's support of firing all the teachers is a prime example of failed leadership.

[WhiteTara]

80. It always has. That's why the pukes

are in control today. Democrats (after the Revolution) went on to raise their children, run their businesses and were in general activists, but not daily nuts and bolts local government....you know, school board, civic center board, fair board, park board, all those bores. They took over, we were busy living and here we are again.

We have to learn Process so that we can take it all back. Of course, Process takes time and is boring for the most part; but, then there are those little moments where you can make a difference...and the pukes are there, not us.

[Brickbat]

2. Excellent. I'd like to see more unions doing this.

[UrbScotty]

4. Undermining Democrats? No thank you. (nt)

[Brickbat]

6. Withholding funds from people who aren't helping them? Yes, please.

The Democrats have been taking labor for granted since the fall of the farmer-labor movement, and I'm tired of it.

[bobbolink]

10. I agree with you. Continuing to behave like abused wives has gotten us exactly nowhere.

Sadly, there is no money to withhold when it comes to poor people.

All we can do is tell 'em what we think of 'em, and withhold our votes.

THEN we get blamed for that result.

Its really too bad that it has all come to this. :cry:

[UrbScotty]

12. That's complete and utter bullcrap. My county Party is basically run by the unions.

Hell, the entire state Democratic party here in Michigan is so tightly controlled by the unions.

[blondeatlast]

15. Well, bully for Michigan. that isn't the case elsewhere--and you sound upset

about unions having such control over the party--why?

[UrbScotty]

22. What I'm upset about is the purist idea that unions are ignored by Democratic

decision-makers - when clearly that is false!

[Brickbat]

24. What on earth do you mean by "purist"?

All I'm looking for is a little payback on the promises made during a campaign season -- and so far, I haven't seen that on the federal level.

[QC]

91. A purist is someone who expects elected officials to be responsive

to the needs of those whose votes put them in office.

[Brickbat]

17. This article is about the federal level.

And heh, "controlled by". O NOES!

[blondeatlast]

19. Yeah, I noticed that too. Interesting word choice. nt

[Poll_Blind]

34. Indeed.

PB

[UrbScotty]

20. First of all, I know that's about the federal level. Second, YOU try getting anything done

in the Democratic Party around here without labor support.

I don't think you can.

[blondeatlast]

21. And what, exactly, is wrong with that? nt

[UrbScotty]

32. Nothing! What's wrong is people assume Democrats don't support unions, when Dems DO

support unions.

[blondeatlast]

37. Specifics? What have they done lately (I ask for the SECOND time)? nt

[UrbScotty]

55. For one thing, saving the auto industry - and with it, countless jobs.

Obama gets next to NO credit for that, but remember how the Republiucans were hoping to destroy the unions then?

At their time of greatest need, our President stood up for them.

Then there's healthcare/Wall Street/credit card reform - all of which continue to scare Republicans s***less, because they know how good those policies are.

[Brickbat]

62. Remember the outcry over the tax on "Cadillac" health-care plans? Many of those were union health-

care plans. And unions had to fight their "allies" in the Senate to get union plans exempted from that tax -- until 2018.

[bvar22]

68. The Democratic Party Leadership did NOT support Unions...

...in the Arkansas Primary 2010.
They openly ridiculed LABOR for supporting a Pro-LABOR candidate.

[Brickbat]

23. Sounds like you got the right thing going on there!

When federal-level Democrats remember they can't get elected without labor support, maybe they'll pay a little more attention to labor's needs.

See? It's win-win!

[UrbScotty]

53. It would also help if labor would support progressives primarying blue dogs

and maybe even recruit a few progressives.

That will do much more to teach them a lesson than to let Republicans win.

[xphile]

98. Did you not pay attention to Arkansas?

The unions DID support a more progressive candidate and the White House ridiculed the unions for having the temerity to oppose Blanche Lincoln?

So your point is to demonstrate exactly how the lesson was NOT learned?

[olegramps]

90. Are you complaining? Or are you glad that is the case?

[QC]

92. Your county is not the world. n/t

[UrbScotty]

25. Then they SHOULDN'T support those who betray them (Republicans)!

Your argument about Dems not supporting unions has NO merit whatsoever.

Unless you don't know what Dems have done in recent years.

[Brickbat]

31. Withholding support does not mean supporting someone else.

You know, when I was considering the election of 2008, I didn't expect a huge new socialist dawn. Or even a pony, as so many are so fond of claiming around here. I was hoping for benign neglect of labor -- something like Clinton before he got all NAFTA on our ass. But that phrase is key -- benign neglect. Can you believe it? That's the best I was hoping for a from a Democratic candidate.

And what has labor got instead? The active wrecking of its teachers unions, contempt toward its public employees unions, a huge shrug-off on EFCA, and the continued undermining of other unions through more bizarre "free-trade" agreements. And if that argument doesn't hold enough merit for you, then our conversation is clearly over.

[UrbScotty]

48. Actually, in a way, yes. See: 2010.

Most of the people who voted for McCain, came back and voted for Republican candidates in 2010. Not as many Obama voters did the same for Democrats.

If they did, then Democrats would've shellacked Republicans, instead of the other way around.

But look what we got instead: Pelosi's no longer Speaker, Feingold and Grayson are out of office, and on and on and on.

And what has labor got instead? The active wrecking of its teachers unions, contempt toward its public employees unions, a huge shrug-off on EFCA, and the continued undermining of other unions through more bizarre "free-trade" agreements. And if that argument doesn't hold enough merit for you, then our conversation is clearly over.

Yeah - at the hands of REPUBLICANS.

Blaming Obama and other Democrats for all of that makes about as much sense as blaming Keith Olbermann for Fox News's bias.

[Brickbat]

58. Sorry, bud.

The shrug-off on EFCA came in 2008-10 -- total lack of leadership when we had majorities and the WH; Obama pushed hard for the Colombia free-trade agreement and totally backtracked on the South Korean FTE, and he supports Arne Duncan's union-busting policies; and the freeze of federal workers' pay was a total sop to Republicans.

So, I guess if you want to argue that the Democrats were "hamstrung" and "acting at the hands of" the Republicans, I guess you could, but that totally undermine any reason to support those Democrats, wouldn't it?

[TheKentuckian]

51. Perfect opportunity to educate. By all means, lay it out.

What has the National party, Congress, and the Administration been doing in recent years?

[UrbScotty]

59. As I've said elsewhere in this thread:

There was the stimulus, healthcare reform, Wall Street reform, credit card reform... The Republicans fought tooth and nail against all of this because they knew it would benefit working people!

Then there's the whole "saving the auto industry" thing, for which President Obama gets far too little credit.

[TheKentuckian]

78. No, what is being done to strengthen collective bargaining rights, opposing "right to work" laws,

bolstering wages?

I give credit for saving the auto industry but hell if that isn't just bottom barrel sanity. Anybody that wouldn't take the minimal steps taken with serious wage destruction for the surviving employees doesn't deserve to be pissed on should they catch flame.

The Wealth Care and Profit Protection Act is a detriment. The stimulus was too light on infrastructure to give a lift and too heavy on tax cuts to work properly for the rising tide effect, I don't see where the Dodd capitulation is a big boon for labor nor requiring the banks to advise us of our reamings, and then you've got wage freezes for Federal workers and an outright attack on the teacher's union.

These people are asking for attention to their issues not a laundry list of "accomplishments". I don't get this be our foot soldiers and ATM machines but be happy with what we do unconditionally attitude.

Instead of urging our tin ear leaders to get on the stick your lips are poked out at the people. Fucking ass backward.

The party either serves the people or it is obsolete and innately corrupt.

[joeunderdog]

36. Undermining Dems ...who don't support them.

The silence is deafening on this issue from Dem leadership. Handing money to them if they don't do their job is sending out the wrong message. They'll never change if they don't have consequences for their actions (or inactions.)

It's time that none of us gave votes to anyone on the basis of party affiliation; rather solely on the basis of their performance and position on the issues.

[eleny]

3. Gentlemen, the rubber has met the road

[UrbScotty]

27. It won't meet the road until they support PRIMARY opponents

a la Donna Edwards, Joe Sestak, Bill Halter, etc., etc.

[orwell]

9. Congratulations...

...on getting still more Republicons elected to federal office.

Because everyone knows how union-friendly that will be.

I guess the US Chamber of Commerce/Crossroads GPS master plan is working beautifully. Pour massive amounts of laundered corporate dollars into all Con campaigns at every level while you simultaneously defund your opposition.

Why are posters cheering this again?

[UrbScotty]

14. +1,000,000,000! Supporters of this move have a LOT of explaining to do. (nt)

[blondeatlast]

35. Okay, but first, why are you threatened by unions?

Here's my 'splainin', urb:

1. There is a massive push on by RRRepublicans to make "Right to Be Screwed By Your Employer" the law in every state.
2. Unions don't like "Right to Be Screwed By Your Employer" laws.
3. Congress is weakening labor and worker protection laws.
4. Unions are one of the most enthusiastic and hard-working groups in Democratic races donating thousands of dollars and hours of volunteer time locally.
5. In return, they get weakened and ignored.
6. Without unions, the Party as a whole will fail.
7. Unions know this--and they are using their power to benefit themselves which is fine by this Union member because unions benefit EVERY worker.

[UrbScotty]

42. Why do you keep falsely accusing me of hating unions? Grandpa was a UAW member

...and, like many UAW members, he SUPPORTED Democrats, because he knew that Democrats are FAR better for working people than the Party of Palin.

[blondeatlast]

46. I didn't say "hate". I said you were threatened by their political power.

So I ask again--why?

[xphile]

99. -1,000,000,000,000 YOU are the one who has some explaining to do.

Why don't you explain how backing a political party that refuses to do a damn thing for you when in power yet constantly begs for your manpower and money is deserving of support after they've shown that they have no interest in even pretending to serve your interests.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Democratic party is entitled to the support of this union no matter what they do? They are not and the union clearly has decided that on a federal level the party hasn't done anything to earn their backing. It's within their rights. Instead of pissing and moaning about the unions doing what they're supposed to do, look out for their members, you should be after the party for ignoring them and taking the union members for granted.

You're bitching about the wrong group here and it's utterly ass backward.

[Xithras]

39. Keeping Republicans out of office isn't the job of the unions.

Unions exist for one purpose, and that's to support the employment interests of their members. They usually donate to Democrats, because Democrats have historically been more friendly to unions, but they DO sometimes donate to Republican candidates...when those candidates are more worker friendly (less common, but it does occasionally happen).

One of the problems today is that Democrats now view unions as a constituency...a sub-group within the Democratic Party. Unions have never been a Democratic constituency...they are politically independent groups that CHOOSE to support parties and candidates, and have a long political alliance with the Democratic Party. The thing with alliances, unlike constituencies, is that there is no expectation of permanence. Democrats must CONTINUALLY prove their dedication to workers causes in order to justify the continuance of that political alliance. If Democrats fail to support workers, the unions have a responsibility to cut off support to the Democratic Party. If the Democrats want that support back, they need to earn it.

[Brickbat]

41. This was very well-said, and I thank you for it.

[dana_b]

54. perfectly stated

I hope the unions do support the politicians who have their backs but otherwise they have too much of a fight on their own hands than to worry about elections.

[leftstreet]

67. +1

[Dappleganger]

75. +100000

[Little Star]

86. Well said Xithras!

[blondeatlast]

13. Sounds like they are targeting Right to "Work" laws and I applaud them. If Congressional Dems

are pissed about this they should produce something that benefits unions.

Signed,
blondeatlast
Proud Democrat and even prouder AFSCME member

[UrbScotty]

26. "Produce something that benefits unions" - like, say, what they HAVE been doing? (nt)

[Poll_Blind]

16. No money will hopefully make the DLC fleas jump ship to the GOP where they belong.

And put The Fear back into elected representatives that they need to be doing more for the people and less for corporate interests.

:thumbsup:

PB

[UrbScotty]

18. Look how well that worked out in 2010!

:sarcasm:

:thumbsdown:

[Poll_Blind]

30. I give my money and my vote to politicians who DELIVER. Everyone else can take a hike.

DeFazio, Wyden- these people are working for me.

Higher up the chain if they're not going to respect the people they can hit the road.

PB

[UrbScotty]

38. Like I said, 2010. Ryan? Boehner? Toomey? Ron Johnson? Walker?

Has the lesson not been learned?

And as for the 'Dems,' where are the primary challengers? And where is the support for said primary challengers?

[Poll_Blind]

45. The "or else" card is all you got. And that's a pathetic hand to hold, much less play with.

It's deliver the goods or hit the road and don't dare come a-knockin' again.

PB

[EC]

43. Gee, just what the GOP ordered...

So why fight in the streets to keep Unions, when they won't help the Dems? Isn't the Dems in WI that is supporting the protests and recalls? This petty bickering doesn't help anything...it'll end up keeping us down.

[Brickbat]

47. Some of us were fighting for the unions for what they do.

The gains won by unions didn't come from the ballot box.

[EC]

52. Bull-shit

Unions would not even be around if it weren't for the ballot box putting in pols who believed in the worker.


I remember what it was like in an autoworkers family before the unions - and I also know what my Mother's family lived with in the West Virginia coal mines and the forming of the unions there. It took the pols to help them fight the corps.



And I guess the union haven't noticed how much local help the Dems have been providing...fed dems have been kinda busy, if you haven't noticed.

[Brickbat]

70. We could chicken-and-egg this all day.

Yeah, unions were "illegal" until politicians got rid of those laws. But they didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts; the people demanded it, and in some cases, politicians acted the way they did in order to keep the commies out.

The situation in Wisconsin is a great example of labor and Democrats working together, IMO. It's not necessarily an example of how things are great all over.

[blondeatlast]

44. Here's your explanation, Scotty (which was in the OP, btw):

International Association of Firefighters President Harold Schaitberger says there is a more urgent need to spend money defending anti-union measures* sweeping GOP-controlled statehouses across the country.

+Read that as "Right to Be Screwed By Your Employer" laws.

[UrbScotty]

61. Also, "Schaitberger wants the move to send a message that lawmakers shouldn't take firefighters'

support for granted."

[blondeatlast]

64. Should lawmakeers take firefighters support for granted?

I'm asking you, directly, to offer your opinion on the matter.

[seaglass]

87. Not just GOP controlled - there WILL be a fight in MA. The DEMOCRATIC Governor and

his cohorts in the Leg - DEMS - are attempting to take away public union bargaining rights over healthcare.

There WILL BE repercussions at the voting booth.

[mmonk]

57. The only way to make them earn your vote is to make them seek it.

If they feel you are in their pocket, they will continue to seek out Republicans and independents and not listen to you.

[UrbScotty]

60. Which is why we must support progressive Democratic primary challengers (nt)

[damntexdem]

63. The national Dems had better put out this fire ...

or they're going to see the Party burn down.

[mmonk]

84. It's already smoldering. It just isn't the story of interest anywhere

because it messes up the general framing of politics in this country.

[joeybee12]

66. Good...someone needs to wake up the Union-Buster-In-Chief...nt

[bvar22]

69. SOLIDARITY!!!

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone

[Dappleganger]

76. That quote of his is chilling...

we need more Paul Wellstones to save us!

[bvar22]

77. That quote also....

...may have helped get him killed.

[Poll_Blind]

72. Just a few months ago: George Soros Tells Progressive Donors Obama Might Not Be The Best Investment

HuffPo about 4-5 months ago:

WASHINGTON -- At a private meeting on Tuesday afternoon, George Soros, a longtime supporter of progressive causes, voiced blunt criticism of the Obama administration, going so far as to suggest that Democratic donors direct their support somewhere other than the president.

--snip--

According to multiple sources with knowledge of his remarks, Soros told those in attendance that he is "used to fighting losing battles but doesn't like to lose without fighting."

And that last quote says it all: He's "used to fighting losing battles but doesn't like to lose without fighting."

Those that don't fight for us don't get the money, honey. This goes for individuals, up to unions up to billionaires. The money goes to the politicians who deliver, everyone else can hit the road.

PB

[Gman]

73. You can count on the Firefighters if they've endorsed you

they'll be there when no one else is. I'm glad they're tired of being taken for granted.

[Dappleganger]

74. It's about time.

The best way they can send a message is with their $$.

Don't like it? Then our democratic DC folks better get their shit together and be DEMOCRATS.

[kevinbgoode]

81. GOOD FOR THEM! n/t

[Canuckistanian]

82. Good for them.

Unions shouldn't have ideologies. They should put their money where it will do the most good.

And the Democratic party is NOT a good investment for them right now.

[LostinNY]

83. IAFF

My husbands a NY firefighter. We need the union resources here in this state to fight a democratic governors policies! And unfortunately, nationally about 52% of firefighters polled said they were republicans. They really don't see the support from federal democrats and their leaders are following them. I'll be honest-- a lot of firefighters think the new healthcare plan will eventually be pushed onto them as they are state workers and they'll lose the benefits they've fought for. I'm not saying I agree, just what's being said. We do have excellent healthcare, probably a Cadillac plan but don't make the money to pay a huge tax on it. I know my husband gave up pay increases to keep his benefits. They are taking away benefits but we will never see the pay increase. And this is being done by a democratic governor with no help to the firefighters from the federal government!

[seaglass]

88. Same here in MA, my husband is also a firefighter and the fight is over healthcare.

And yes, we do have good healthcare that has been paid for year after year in accepting 0% wage increases and other benefits forfeited.

I love how Deval Patrick runs around stating how great MA healthcare is while he sticks a knife in the public unions backs.

[Bluebear]

85. Can't blame them one bit.

[mistertrickster]

93. Damn right! nt

[slay]

94. Good for them

the Dems need to realize who their base are - and it's NOT the mega-corporations and the super rich. Yay for the firefighters union!

[robinlynne]

95. well done!!! Maybe they will hear that?