But if your argument is that he went to the RNC as an appeal to teamsters who support Trump (aka not lefties), and that he is also choosing not to endorse either candidate on behalf of those teamsters, then that isnāt an appeal to further-left-than-democrats politics, itās an appeal to centrism.
If you understand āleftā to simply mean ādemocratā, then sure? But I think in this context āleftā means āworking class solidarityā.
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 donāt simply understand āleftā to mean ādemocratā, Iām aware that there are people left of democrats.
Being āLeftā 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 isā¦at best, naive. It could be seen as a way to pressure the GOP to care about unions, but they donāt 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. Thatās a simple narrative to fix, if they were interested.
Being āLeftā encompasses more than just solidarity with the working class
Not to a fucking union, there isnāt. Literally their only job is collective bargaining, and threatening to withhold support to gain concessions is famously their most useful tool.
Sure, itĀ couldĀ be to pressure the GOP to care about unions,Ā or it could be to pressure democrats to commit to more protections.
If thatās 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. Thatās 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 isnāt.
Yes, but the statement youāre replying to was a general statement on leftism. Thatās why I follow that up with āEven in this context ā¦ā
Literally their only job is collective bargaining, and threatening to withhold support to gain concessions isĀ 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 donāt play ball with workersā rights is another.
I mean, whatās the play exactly? āGive us even more union protections or Iām gonna help the other guys who definitely donāt give a damn?ā 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 donāt play ball with workersā 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 companyās bottom line, potentially endorsing the other candidate works in the same way. We wouldnāt 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 couldnāt 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 unionās interests, even if that means getting it from the Republicans, if they are āplaying ballā. (The teamsters are a union for a very conservative group of members; itās not out of the question that Trump might grant some very targeted concessions to that group in order to shore up his base)
Thatās why itās crazy that the democrats arenāt making an effort to be more pro-union - in most other ways, democrats are the obvious harm-reduction choice. But letās not pretend as if union protections havenāt 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 youāre replying to was a general statement on leftism. Thatās why I follow that up with āEven in this context ā¦ā
AOC shouldnāt 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 doesnāt have personal reasons for ignoring those broader goals, but that doesnāt mean what sheās doing isnāt punching left.
Itās 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, itād be ludicrous to expect that support from the GOP, because theyāve 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 Iām asserting that itās 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 republicansĀ necessarilycouldnāt offer better support to unions - even if teamstersĀ didĀ 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 unionās interests, even if that means getting it from the Republicans, if they are āplaying ballā. (The teamsters are a union for a very conservative group of members; itās 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 unionsā¦they could also offer to lower prescription drug prices and make school lunches free for grade schoolers. Theyāre not gonna do any of those things, b/c they donāt wanna do any of those things and they havenāt wanted to do any of those things in at least 40 years. Iāll accept cited evidence to the contrary, otherwise we can agree to disagree.
Thatās why itās crazy that the democrats arenāt making an effort to beĀ moreĀ pro-union - in most other ways, democrats are the obvious harm-reduction choice. But letās not pretend as if union protections havenāt 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 partyās 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 āno uā lol. What reasons does a group with specific labor interests have to endorse a party thatās 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 shouldnāt be blaming Teamsters for agitating for better labor policy, and doing soĀ absolutely ispunching left, becauseĀ the thing Teamsters is interested in is a politically-left objective. Not that AOC doesnāt have personal reasons for ignoring those broader goals, but that doesnāt mean what sheās doing isnāt punching left.
Look. I donāt know very much about Sean OāBrien. Iām 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, heās hurting union workers. From that lens, AOC questioning his leadership isnāt punching left - sheās either punching a guy whoās actually to her right (for reasons outside workersā rights) or punching a guy who might as well be.
And one more thing: at the end of the day, sheās critical of the guy, not the mission. Sheās not saying āworkers shouldnāt have more protectionsā, sheās saying āI question the leadership of this guy whose job it is to get workers more protectionsā. And quite frankly I agree with that.
Edit: yāknow how I said I donāt know much about Sean OāBrien? Well thanks to another lemmyer, now I do!
So yeah, if thereās an ounce of truth to this, it speaks to the nagging feeling I have that heās the kind of guy whoās a probably secretly a conservative forā¦other reasons.
So yeah, if thereās an ounce of truth to this, it speaks to the nagging feeling I have that heās the kind of guy whoās a probably secretly a conservative forā¦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 itās the reason Iām not particularly interested in having this debate with you. There have been many labor groups and unions in the USās 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. Hereās 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 shouldnāt be surprising that there would be discrimination within it. But thatās 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 donāt think weāll see eye-to-eye on this. It isnāt as simple as ādemocrats are more labor friendlyā - 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 Iād like to, but wonāt, say about your comment, because itās 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 āyou almost tricked me into taking your questions at face value, but then you said that OāBrien being racist might be sorta relevant, so clearly I have a broader understanding ofā¦somethingā¦then you, so youāll never see that Iām rightā. You could clarify if you want, but I donāt really care.
That said, Iāll try to focus on your last couple sentences:
It isnāt as simple as ādemocrats are more labor friendlyā - 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 youāve been driving at this whole time, then I still disagree with you, but I can respect your opinion. You might be right that we wonāt see eye-to-eye, but not because of me probably not having a deeper understanding of āmaterial relations being fundamental to political movementsā, or you probably not having a deeper appreciation of āactual meat-and-bones policy being fundamental to the satisfaction of union members, both short-term and long-termā. I think you and I might just have different priorities, and Iām 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 wasnāt āwhat is the direct course of action unions are justified in taking to optimize worker satisfactionā. It was literally something as nebulous as āDid AOC āpunch leftā by criticizing OāBrienā. 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 āpunching leftā is a poorly-worded and/or insufficiently brief critique?
I suppose you have a point. Maybe punching left is not accurate.
Thing is tho he didnāt go to the RNC l as an appeal to teamsters, he asked both RNC and DNC to be a speaker and only the RNC called back. DNC ghosted his ass.
When at the RNC, he spoke about the importance of both parties to respect workers rights. He and other execs went to both camps (and biden before he stepped down) as they always do to try and extract promises in return for an endorsement.
They didnāt get any promises from either camp though. He could have gone with his āconstituentsā polling numbers and endorsed Trump but he did not.
He was the first acting teamster president to ever speak at the RNC, thatās a huge deal regardless of whether he was also expecting to speak at the DNC. Especially given how anti-union the republican party generally is.
Either it was an appeal to conservative teamsters, or he himself is quietly moderate or conservative.
But if your argument is that he went to the RNC as an appeal to teamsters who support Trump (aka not lefties), and that he is also choosing not to endorse either candidate on behalf of those teamsters, then that isnāt an appeal to further-left-than-democrats politics, itās an appeal to centrism.
My point then being
Doesnāt really make sense in this context
If you understand āleftā to simply mean ādemocratā, then sure? But I think in this context āleftā means āworking class solidarityā.
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 donāt simply understand āleftā to mean ādemocratā, Iām aware that there are people left of democrats.
Being āLeftā 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 isā¦at best, naive. It could be seen as a way to pressure the GOP to care about unions, but they donāt 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. Thatās a simple narrative to fix, if they were interested.
Not to a fucking union, there isnāt. Literally their only job is collective bargaining, and threatening to withhold support to gain concessions is famously their most useful tool.
If thatās 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 youāre replying to was a general statement on leftism. Thatās why I follow that up with āEven in this context ā¦ā
That made me chuckle, you have a fair point. But again, withholding support is one thing, and speaking at the RNC with republicans who donāt play ball with workersā rights is another.
I mean, whatās the play exactly? āGive us even more union protections or Iām gonna help the other guys who definitely donāt give a damn?ā 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 companyās bottom line, potentially endorsing the other candidate works in the same way. We wouldnāt 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 couldnāt 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 unionās interests, even if that means getting it from the Republicans, if they are āplaying ballā. (The teamsters are a union for a very conservative group of members; itās not out of the question that Trump might grant some very targeted concessions to that group in order to shore up his base)
Thatās why itās crazy that the democrats arenāt making an effort to be more pro-union - in most other ways, democrats are the obvious harm-reduction choice. But letās not pretend as if union protections havenāt 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 shouldnāt 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 doesnāt have personal reasons for ignoring those broader goals, but that doesnāt mean what sheās doing isnāt punching left.
Itās 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, itād be ludicrous to expect that support from the GOP, because theyāve been consistently anti-union for over 40 years.
Yeah, and Iām asserting that itās 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 unionsā¦they could also offer to lower prescription drug prices and make school lunches free for grade schoolers. Theyāre not gonna do any of those things, b/c they donāt wanna do any of those things and they havenāt wanted to do any of those things in at least 40 years. Iāll accept cited evidence to the contrary, otherwise we can agree to disagree.
What specific issue do you take with the Democratic partyās 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 āno uā lol. What reasons does a group with specific labor interests have to endorse a party thatās been overly pro-company since Reagan?
Again, what policies specifically?
Look. I donāt know very much about Sean OāBrien. Iām 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, heās hurting union workers. From that lens, AOC questioning his leadership isnāt punching left - sheās either punching a guy whoās actually to her right (for reasons outside workersā rights) or punching a guy who might as well be.
And one more thing: at the end of the day, sheās critical of the guy, not the mission. Sheās not saying āworkers shouldnāt have more protectionsā, sheās saying āI question the leadership of this guy whose job it is to get workers more protectionsā. And quite frankly I agree with that.
Edit: yāknow how I said I donāt know much about Sean OāBrien? Well thanks to another lemmyer, now I do!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/31/teamsters-racial-discrimination-lawsuit
So yeah, if thereās an ounce of truth to this, it speaks to the nagging feeling I have that heās the kind of guy whoās a probably secretly a conservative forā¦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 itās the reason Iām not particularly interested in having this debate with you. There have been many labor groups and unions in the USās 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. Hereās 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 shouldnāt be surprising that there would be discrimination within it. But thatās 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 donāt think weāll see eye-to-eye on this. It isnāt as simple as ādemocrats are more labor friendlyā - 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 Iād like to, but wonāt, say about your comment, because itās 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 āyou almost tricked me into taking your questions at face value, but then you said that OāBrien being racist might be sorta relevant, so clearly I have a broader understanding ofā¦somethingā¦then you, so youāll never see that Iām rightā. You could clarify if you want, but I donāt really care.
That said, Iāll try to focus on your last couple sentences:
If this is the entire point youāve been driving at this whole time, then I still disagree with you, but I can respect your opinion. You might be right that we wonāt see eye-to-eye, but not because of me probably not having a deeper understanding of āmaterial relations being fundamental to political movementsā, or you probably not having a deeper appreciation of āactual meat-and-bones policy being fundamental to the satisfaction of union members, both short-term and long-termā. I think you and I might just have different priorities, and Iām 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 wasnāt āwhat is the direct course of action unions are justified in taking to optimize worker satisfactionā. It was literally something as nebulous as āDid AOC āpunch leftā by criticizing OāBrienā. 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 āpunching leftā is a poorly-worded and/or insufficiently brief critique?
I suppose you have a point. Maybe punching left is not accurate.
Thing is tho he didnāt go to the RNC l as an appeal to teamsters, he asked both RNC and DNC to be a speaker and only the RNC called back. DNC ghosted his ass.
When at the RNC, he spoke about the importance of both parties to respect workers rights. He and other execs went to both camps (and biden before he stepped down) as they always do to try and extract promises in return for an endorsement.
They didnāt get any promises from either camp though. He could have gone with his āconstituentsā polling numbers and endorsed Trump but he did not.
He was the first acting teamster president to ever speak at the RNC, thatās a huge deal regardless of whether he was also expecting to speak at the DNC. Especially given how anti-union the republican party generally is.
Either it was an appeal to conservative teamsters, or he himself is quietly moderate or conservative.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/31/teamsters-racial-discrimination-lawsuit
I was literally just saying in another thread that I didnāt know much about OāBrienā¦well now I do! Thanks stranger!