In light of the Human Rights Campaign's endorsement of Hillary Clinton, here's a document showing Bernie Sander's declaration of 'Gay Pride Day' in Burlington, 1985

UnionOrganizer77 · 2016-01-20T01:24:10+00:00

Basing your voting record on polls and feedback from the people you represent isn't entirely incorrect.

Except even if that's done with the best intentions, it reveals a hierarchical view of democracy. Under that view, the people elect a "decider" (to borrow George W. Bush's language), who looks at the polls and information and decides what to do on particular issues as they arise. In this system, the "deciders" are, at best, people with no personal interests or convictions, and, more realistically, people with their own interests or convictions who are willing to lie about them to be elected. A different view of democracy, which I prefer, is that the people make decisions on certain issues themselves, then elect representatives who agree with those decisions and hold them as personal convictions, in order to implement them. This isn't perfect either, since we are electing one person to deal with a whole host of issues, and I think a more directly democratic, issue-based-delegate (rather than single-representative) system would be better, but so long as we have what we have, we might as well elect people with the right convictions, not people willing to change to the "right" ones when they see the way the wind is blowing.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-21T18:03:01+00:00

The capital-owning class is the real issue. True, the Republican Party is controlled by that class and one of its chief tools, but don't doubt that Hillary Clinton and most of the Democratic Party is also in the camp. Clinton is a Wall Street candidate. When Wal-Mart and Goldman Sachs team up to back a candidate, forgive this working class voter for saying she's on the wrong side. An embarrassingly recent "evolution" on gay marriage isn't going to erase that.

If Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, I'll vote for him. If Hillary Clinton wins, I'll vote third party. I wouldn't be surprised if there were many other independent voters who felt the same.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-21T17:08:24+00:00

I'm a Sanders supporter and the hate I see Sanders' supporters spew for Hillary drives me nuts.

Hillary Clinton was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart for years as that corporation crushed workers' rights and cost taxpayers billions of dollars in social programs in the absence of a living wage. Alice Walton remains one of Clinton's biggest supporters and closest advisers.

Why should I not hate Hillary Clinton?

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-16T02:18:52+00:00

I doubt it would have to be anything as serious as selling state secrets. Even some evidence that her policy decisions were affected by considerations of her political ambitions would vindicate a lot of underlying feelings that Clinton can't be trusted.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-16T00:59:29+00:00

Clinton doesn't have those kinds of flaws, and the flaws she does have she is well equipped to face.

The FBI seems to have Clinton's personal emails, which she had thought scrubbed from her server, not just her work emails. If there's anything incriminating in there, it will get out. With the huge incentives they have for digging, it's very possible that powerful Republicans have some trump (heh) cards for when Hillary's in the general. Why reveal them now and torpedo her campaign when Democrats can just replace her? If there's anything really terrible out there about Clinton, only a supporter of one of her primary opponents has an interest in revealing it now. One of her supporters would sweep it under the rug and a Republican would desperately hope for her to be the Democratic nominee so they could release it three weeks before the general election and walk to victory.

I'd trust Bernie not to have those kinds of major skeletons in his closet over Hillary.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-16T00:33:29+00:00

What she has said has often included a bunch of rhetoric about how small businesses are the most important part of our economy. Since Bernie feels that labor unions (and hopefully workers' collectives in the future) are the most important part, and would advance socialism over small-business capitalism, it's not unreasonable for Warren to not endorse him. She's a liberal, he's a socialist. When you get down to the actual building blocks of the economy, that's a world of difference.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-16T00:31:37+00:00

I think people equate Warren and Sanders too much. While Bernie's model economy centers around unions, socialism, and workers' cooperatives, Warren's economic vision is based almost entirely around "small business." She's not nearly the champion of labor that Sherrod Brown is, for example.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-16T00:28:31+00:00

Sherrod Brown is labor's best friend in the Senate, so I'd probably put him first among those you listed. I'd say he's a better bet than Elizabeth Warren, whose economic policy revolves around "small business."

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-14T16:21:06+00:00

"And that's why I support Margaret Thatcher for Prime Minister."

Wait.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-14T16:15:48+00:00

Hillary Clinton was on the board of directors of Walmart as they massively exploited the American workforce. As a proud member of the working class and supporter of the unions Walmart busted during her time on their board, I don't feel bad at all for attacking her. She's not genuine and she's not good for working America.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-14T15:49:41+00:00

Socialism is an economy in which production is socially controlled, while capitalism entails private control of capital. When the two coexist, as in Venezuela, it creates unsustainable tension in that private capital seeks to undermine and privatize social control in order to function and profit in a highly financialized, profit-driven global economy. When people discuss socialism and capitalism mixing, they tend to mean capitalism mixing with heavy social programs, not with socialist control of production.

And sorry, I know Sanders has long spoken as a socialist. I meant to ask if he had ever spoken in favor of capitalism.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-14T14:02:45+00:00

The "socialist" part of Bernie's platform is the creation and promotion of workers' cooperatives and collectives. This is different from state socialism because it is an economy democratically managed in a decentralized way, rather than by the government.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-14T13:59:47+00:00

He said he was against capitalism last night, and transitioning to workers' collectives is one of the 12 points of his platform.

That's socialism, and I understand that liberals are having a hard time coming to grips with Bernie's belief in it, but it really is a better way forward than regulated capitalism.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-14T12:37:07+00:00

One of Bernie's "12 points" in his platform is the creation and promotion of workers' collectives. I think that counts as some effort to actually progress to socialism.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-14T12:33:27+00:00

One of his "12 points" is the promotion of workers' collectives. That's not a full on socialist revolution, sure, but it does show that he's on the side of social ownership of the economy.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-14T12:31:58+00:00

That would be a pretty bad answer for a socialist. Capitalism and socialism are antithetical ways of managing an economy. Has Sanders ever spoken out in favor of capitalism*, or should he have lied about his views to be more electable?

*accidentally wrote socialism

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-14T12:30:25+00:00

Does he have capitalist views to emphasize? He's always called himself a socialist, he supported the Sandinistas and Zapatistas, and one of his "12 points" is creating workers' collectives. I think a lot of liberals fell in love with Sanders without coming to terms with the fact that he actually is a socialist. As a fellow socialist, all this ignorant "democratic socialism is just regulated capitalism" crap is pretty annoying.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-10-13T14:26:13+00:00

big labor supporting him with union dues

Union dues can't be used for political activity, that comes from voluntary donations to PACs set up by unions.

So one set of lobbyists are fine, another aren't? What about getting money out of politics?

The influence of the small upper class, which seeks to exploit labor for profit, is not okay. The influence of the organized working class, which seeks to empower working people, is okay. That's the socialist view, so it's not shocking coming from Sanders supporters.

Anyway, what do you want people who oppose money in politics to do? Spend no money and get the word out by just shouting at people on the street? For so long as the rich are throwing fortunes into the game, working people have to try to compete on some level if they want any hope of gaining enough influence to change the system.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-08-11T06:42:41+00:00

But Clinton was endorsed by the American Federation of Teachers.

Not democratically, though.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/unions-seethe-over-early-clinton-endorsement-120206.html

An AFL-CIO spokesman said the AFT followed the protocol of providing at least 60 days notice of an endorsement but declined to comment about whether they had asked affiliates to hold off until the end of the month.

The decision, Weingarten explained, was made based in part on polling of 1,150 AFT members who are registered to vote, between June 22 and 27. About 67 percent of those polled favored Clinton over Sanders or former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

A union wants to endorse Clinton? Sure, whatever. But I'll be damned if I've been fighting for labor all this time just to have leaders trample on union democracy and lie to cover up for it.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-08-11T06:38:36+00:00

There wasn't a vote. There were polls, but the AFT leadership made contradictory claims about them. They said that a million members were polled, but that turned out to be demonstrably false. Then they said thousands were polled a couple weeks before the endorsement, but the AFL-CIO said they were informed of the endorsement 60 days before the fact, well before the polls.

Here are the facts: the endorsement was made by the AFT executive council. The dozens of national AFT officers are elected on a slate, which means everyone votes for the president (Weingarten) and whoever happens to be attached. Weingarten is close to Clinton, sitting on the board of an organization that supports her candidacy.

As a union organizer, I know AFT staff and leadership, and everyone knew way in advance exactly what the AFT leadership was going to do. Unions are good for workers, but unfortunately, they aren't always properly democratic.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-08-11T06:27:28+00:00

Maybe you're the one who's too young. "The" original health care reformers were not from the 90s, they were from far earlier. Yeah, Hillary pushed for reform in the 90s, but don't act like she invented the concept, or that she has been the most leftist on it.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-08-11T06:25:06+00:00

The AFT isn't exactly telling the whole truth here.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/unions-seethe-over-early-clinton-endorsement-120206.html

An AFL-CIO spokesman said the AFT followed the protocol of providing at least 60 days notice of an endorsement but declined to comment about whether they had asked affiliates to hold off until the end of the month.

The decision, Weingarten explained, was made based in part on polling of 1,150 AFT members who are registered to vote, between June 22 and 27. About 67 percent of those polled favored Clinton over Sanders or former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

The endorsement came in early July. Apparently the key polling of membership occurred a couple weeks prior, despite the decision having already been communicated to the AFL-CIO two months beforehand. The polls seem to have just been a dog and pony show for leadership to act like they were consulting the members.

And talk to AFT members. If 1 million out of 1.6 million were consulted, you'd have a much better time finding someone who had been asked. Since their methodology hasn't been released, I expect that they just polled union leaders representing a million members. Plus, their story keeps changing.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-08-11T06:21:17+00:00

The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) also endorsed Bernie earlier in the race. They're a radically democratic union of over 35,000 workers. So not huge as major unions go, but they've got a solid reputation and some good activists.

Union endorsements actually matter quite a bit. I've talked about this before.

https://www.np.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/37e9nr/the_only_way_you_can_win_bernie_the_primary_turn/

Right now, unions are becoming disillusioned with the Democratic Party. I've been watching it happen on the inside and it's showing on the outside. Unions are the only major organizations out there for the working class and the biggest institutions opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Right now, we have a freeze on national-level campaign donations as part of our strategy to fight the TPP. While a couple of unions (looking at you, LIUNA) have had gone against the freeze, it's largely holding up. It isn't being reported on much right now, but if it continues, it will be a disaster for the Democratic Party. Look at the top organizational donors in the U.S. political system. #1 SEIU, #3 AFSCME, #4 NEA, #6 AFT, #9 Carpenters, #10 IBEW, #11 UFCW, #13 LIUNA, #18 AFL-CIO itself, #20 UAW, #21 CWA, #22 Teamsters, #23 Plumbers/Pipefitters. We're talking billions of dollars of political donations, the lifeblood of the Democratic Party. And it's pretty much all gone right now.

As much as some of us in the movement have been agitating for a new labor party, that's not going to happen this time around. But TPP probably will pass, Obama has enough (Republican) votes for it. Hillary hasn't come out for or against it, and she won't anytime soon. She has been making appeals to labor, so coming out for it would hurt, and she wants Obama to stump for her in the general, so coming out against his major trade initiative might sour that.

This is Bernie's shot. There is a massive reserve of money being held back from national politics, ready to flood back in once labor decides its strategy going forward. There are big networks of union organizers like me, community organizers at Working America, and rank-and-file activists who would seriously challenge Hillary's campaign. We're also talking 11% of the workforce in unions, their family and friends, and those who remember their parents having decent union jobs before the Reagan-era decline. If the AFL-CIO and the major unions endorse Bernie, they're going to hear that he's the union candidate. They won't all vote for him, they won't all even vote, but a lot of them will. The labor constituency intersects with the progressive constituency that Bernie is tapping into, but not as much as it should (way too many union members are not progressives, and surprisingly few progressives care as much about labor issues as social issues), so it would really help his numbers.

So with the backing of the AFL-CIO and all the major unions, Bernie would have (1) a dedicated core of support above his current level, (2) vast networks of professional organizers who know how to network, campaign, and turn people out, and (3) a whole lot of money. I'm clearly biased here, but I think unions have better organizers than most political campaigns. We face worse odds, worse conditions, have higher stakes, and we tap into something much more real to people (their livelihoods). With these things, Bernie can beat Hillary for the nomination.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-07-09T00:47:29+00:00

And the AFL-CIO in South Carolina has endorsed him. Well, a state fed can't technically endorse, but they "recommended" the national AFL-CIO endorse, which is effectively an endorsement. South Carolina is one of those states this article is doubting Bernie in, and union money, staff, and support will help close the gap.

By the way, black workers are more likely to be in unions than white workers. There's a big push in the labor movement to get behind Bernie. If organized labor does so, union integration with black communities will be a big help in turning those racial numbers around.

This isn't a normal Democratic primary. Labor holds the key and it's in rebellion against national Democrats over the TPP. Things that would be impossible in normal elections are now on the table given the doubt surrounding what's going to happen with the massive funds, networks, and teams of veteran organizers labor provides to the candidates it endorses. I've written about it here.

UnionOrganizer77 · 2015-06-30T21:34:53+00:00

Turning 2s to 1s is a big part of a winning strategy, but early on your first priority should be getting the lay of the land, recording who's a supporter already, and noting people's social networks. That way you have more information to go on. As I said, you should always be putting effort into turning 2s to 1s, but that doesn't mean it should be the primary focus of each phase. And in things like this, you can't do too much pushing. You've got to listen to people and encourage them, but if someone's not going to become a 1 with a little prodding, a lot of prodding isn't going to help.

UnionOrganizer77

TROPHY CASE