This could be huge..Union leader calls out Trump.

[busterbrown]

Big Time... It took a hell of a long time...but its about time..Too many years that Union members were more involved with issues which had nothing to do with how Republicans treated Unions like Crap.

Maybe this will be the breaking point... Unions rejoining our coalition to end the destruction republicans have reeked on them for decades.....

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/richard-trumka-afl-cio-trump-hurting-american-workers_n_5d6c66f9e4b0cdfe057214bf

[Me.]

1. Trumka Should Be Shamefaced

For the support he and his union gave to the traitor in the WH and yet, I saw him on MSNBC last week making demands for what they wanted for a Dem to support them. Lotta, lotta nerve.

[Omaha Steve]

2. What support for traitor in the WH?

[Me.]

5. THis

Does Labor Have a Death Wish?
A year ago, many union members broke with their leaders and voted for Donald Trump. He’s done almost nothing to repay them.

“One year after an election it would like to forget, organized labor is taking it on the chin from a president who won more union households than any other Republican during the previous three decades. Labor leaders overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton. But for the union rank and file, pulling the lever for Donald Trump turned out to be a stunning betrayal of their own movement and its interests. Consider:

• The Republican-majority Supreme Court will this year likely outlaw “fair share” fees from union non-members, dealing a financial blow from which public-employee unions might never recover”….cont…

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/07/labor-movement-trump-betrayal-215796

“Labor union leaders have launched their biggest mobilization ever for the 2020 campaigns, determined to reassert their political power and beat back the inroads President Trump has made with blue-collar workers.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/1/richard-trumka-vows-reverse-trump-gains-union-memb/

Big Labor warns 2020 Dems: Don't take union workers' support for granted
“Big Labor warned Democratic presidential contenders Wednesday against taking union support for granted, adding that Dems would need to be more honest about the party’s record on workers’ rights, reports said.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka argued that “both parties” needed to take responsibility for U.S. labor laws that benefit corporations to the detriment of the middle class.

IN LETTER TO AOC, BIG LABOR SAYS GREEN NEW DEAL COULD CAUSE 'IMMEDIATE HARM' TO UNION WORKERS

“More often than not, the Republican Party is bad for workers. This president is bad for workers. But let’s be honest about the Democratic Party’s record,” Trumka said.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/labor-union-afl-cio-richard-trumka-2020-democratic-presidential-candidates-lets-be-nore-honest-about-the-democratic-partys-record

And Yet, He Could Not Say No

“The question was deceptively simple. At a Wednesday breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka was asked whether the nation’s largest union might endorse President Trump for a second term.

Trumka, who had been supportive of the president’s overall tariff strategy, did not say “no.” But he told John Gizzi, who works for the conservative publication Newsmax, not to get carried away.

“I don’t want to see in your story: Trumka says he’ll endorse Trump,” Trumka said. “I’m not saying that. I’m saying, we’ll consider every candidate who’s running, and our members will help us decide that.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/08/03/will-the-nations-biggest-unions-endorse-trump-no-but-its-complicated/

“AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said President Trump did significantly better among union voters in last year's election than 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, confirming a widely held assumption that Trump had unusually strong appeal among the labor rank and file.

"In the last election President Trump got 3 percentage points more of our members than Mitt Romney did. Unfortunately, Hillary [Clinton] got 10 percent of our members less than Barack Obama did. They either didn't vote or they voted for a third-party candidate," Trumka said at press briefing hosted by the Christian Science Monitor Wednesday.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/union-voters-swung-behind-trump-richard-trumka-says

[Omaha Steve]

6. Labor leaders overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton (from your Politico link)

It wasn't Trumka or the union. It was members that bought what Trump was saying. First time union voters bought a lie? Ever heard the term Raygun Democrats?

Also check a couple of your links. Washington Examiner & Washington times!!!

And labor should have some demands. They are the top ten contributors to D party & candidates.

OS

[Me.]

8. Defend Them All You Want But They Helped Elect Him

Last edited Mon Sep 2, 2019, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)

And even now, after helping him get elected they want to be wooed. THe leaders, how many votes? And it doesn't seem like much leading went on, Trumka couldn't even say no in that interview. You don't like the links...are the stories false?

Are for voting for Reagan, I have no more respect for that than I have for voting for Trump. It was with him that a lot of the trouble we are now in actually began.

[Omaha Steve]

10. Your link says it was a 3% switch to Trump of those that voted Obama

Your blaming every union member.

Those two links aren't usually even allowed on the DU. Need I say more?

One of your links says labor is against the Green New Deal too.

Sorry, Conservatives—Unions Do Support the Green New Deal

Most labor organizers think the plan will save our jobs, not end them.

By Aviva Chomsky AUGUST 7, 2019

When it comes to heat, extreme weather, wildfires, and melting glaciers, the planet is now in what the media increasingly refers to as “record” territory, as climate change’s momentum outpaces predictions. In such a situation, in a country whose president and administration seem hell-bent on doing everything they conceivably can to make matters worse, the Green New Deal (GND) seems to offer at least a modest opening to a path forward.

You know, the resolution introduced this February in the House of Representatives by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Edward Markey (D-MA). Unsurprisingly, the proposal has been roundly attacked by the right. But it’s stirred up some controversy on the left as well. You might imagine that labor unions and environmental organizations would be wholeheartedly for a massive federal investment in good jobs and a just transition away from fossil fuels. But does organized labor actually support or oppose the Green New Deal? What about environmental organizations? If you’re not even sure how to answer such questions, you’re not alone.

That 14-page resolution calls for “a new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal era.” Its purpose: to reduce US carbon emissions to net zero within a decade, while guaranteeing significant numbers of new jobs and social welfare to American workers. Read it and you’ll find that it actually attempts to overcome historical divisions between the American labor and environmental movements by linking a call for good jobs and worker protection to obvious and much-needed environmental goals.

In the process, the GND proposal goes impressively far beyond the modest goals of the Paris Climate Accords and other international agreements. It supports specific, enforceable targets for bringing climate change under control, while drawing clear connections between social, labor, and environmental rights. Acknowledging in blunt terms the urgency of making systemic change on a rapidly warming planet, it calls for the kind of national mobilization Americans haven’t experienced since the end of the Second World War. Described that way, it sounds like something both the labor and environmental movements would naturally support without a second thought. There is, however, both a history of mistrust and real disagreement over issues, which both movements are now grappling with. And the media is doing its part by exaggerating labor’s opposition to the proposal, while ignoring what environmental organizations have to say.

FULL article: https://www.thenation.com/article/unions-support-green-new-deal/

[Me.]

13. No It Doesn't

JUst checked and here is what it says...

"President Trump got 3 percentage points more of our members than Mitt Romney did. Unfortunately, Hillary [Clinton] got 10 percent of our members less than Barack Obama did"

And I didn't say every member, but the % of those who did was not negligible.

[Mc Mike]

17. Trumka has always been on labor Democrats' side.

He's been backing Dem Labor since before Boyle killed Yablonski, close to 50 years.

He didn't tell any AFL-CIO rank and filers to vote for dRump, or any UMW members either. 3% out of 10% of labor switched from Dems to tRump? And 7% sat home or voted for some 3rd party dingaling? You think you can blame Trumka for that?

Tabloid swill, online ops from russian facebook and twitter, fox news all influenced people more than some statement from Trumka directed toward labor. And his statements always back Labor Democrats.

They claimed 25% of Hispanics voted for tRump. Do you blame the head of VotoLatino for that, or Pope Francis, or what?

[Me.]

18. Then I Think He Needs To Be Crystal Clear On That

And Yet, He Could Not Say No

“The question was deceptively simple. At a Wednesday breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka was asked whether the nation’s largest union might endorse President Trump for a second term.

Trumka, who had been supportive of the president’s overall tariff strategy, did not say “no.” But he told John Gizzi, who works for the conservative publication Newsmax, not to get carried away.

“I don’t want to see in your story: Trumka says he’ll endorse Trump,” Trumka said. “I’m not saying that. I’m saying, we’ll consider every candidate who’s running, and our members will help us decide that.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/08/03/will-the-nations-biggest-unions-endorse-trump-no-but-its-complicated/

[Mc Mike]

19. You pretend this complaint of yours is good enough to issue an indictment of

someone who's always backed Labor and Democrats?

10% of Labor Dems didn't turn out for Hillary. He did. I did. 90% of 2012's labor Dems did.

3 of those 10% switched over to back that shithead, and you demand accountability from Trumka? No other factor caused the switch of that 10%, you'll call Trumka on the carpet, while he's trying to pull labor rank and filers onto our side. Like he's been doing for half a century.

I'm almost sure he doesn't feel the need to reassure you. I know I don't, but I've only been backing Dems and Labor for a little < than 40 years. I'm out there fighting against those nitwit repugs on the jobsite, every day, and have been doing so for decades.

Your complaint against Trumka seems like Loomer's protests at twitter, and the like, to me.

[Me.]

20. Nice Try

I repeat, all it takes a simple no. And what started me on this was an interview I saw with him and your post about his reassuring me is nonsense. He needs to reassure the people he wants to continue to support labor that he is with them and all that requires is a yes. And no one asked you to reassure me, in fact, my post wasn't even addressed to you, but you seemingly jumped in with the intent to insult me. Insulting someone is no way to gain support and apparently both you and Trumka don't know that.

[Mc Mike]

21. Thanks

Last edited Sun Sep 8, 2019, 06:59 AM - Edit history (1)

I repeat, you are blatantly demanding that Trumka reassure you. And also that I feel no need to reassure you.

I've seen your posts for years, never had a disagreement with them that stuck. Sorry you feel insulted, I feel you don't know your stuff and are insulting Labor Dems. I don't take it personally though, just strongly disagree with your take on things.

I feel you show no understanding of what the AFL-CIO is, you don't know what the UMW is, what Trumka has done in either organization, or the decades of actions undertaken by Trumka that back labor Dems. You do know you're outraged by an interview he did, blame him for 3 of 10% of defecting Labor Dems switching to Rump, exclusive of all other factors, and you've dodged any other discussion of the issue, by reverting to the simplest 'simple no' indictment you could possibly muster.

Simplify the issue as much as possible, and drive the discussion to the right, against labor. While claiming the left Dem high ground, and ignoring any actual discussion about Trumka or his work for Labor Dems.

You already showed you don't support labor Dems, so I'd advise him that the " 'Me.' + Labor Dems" ship has sailed long ago, if he asked how he could reach out to reassure you about his Dem bonafides, about which you don't show an inkling of knowledge or understanding.

I admit that I don't know what 'people' you represent, though.

[Me.]

26. Oh Give It Up

You don't know what you're talking about. What I don't support is labor members who have been supported by Dems forever supporting the traitor in the WH. Now if you support their voting for him that's on you. Trumpka cannot bring himself to say that he and his union members won't support the person in the WH again. So if that's fine by you, okey dokey, the Dems I know don't feel that voting for the traitor is fine by them. Further, for some reason, you insist he reassure me personally. I think he needs to get on the side of all the voting DEms and stay there if he wants their support, it is a mutually beneficial thing.

Most of your post makes little sense, people I represent? And you certainly like throwing shade. Now if you are going to advise him, tell him to support WHATEVER Dem is our nominee.

[Mc Mike]

32. I see we reached the key point of the argument, which is where you tell me to stop arguing,

while you keep arguing. That's how we can tell you're 'winning' and you're 'right'.

I see also that you admitted you didn't know which union Trumka comes from, in your post # 24, and didn't know what the AFL-CIO is, either. You don't even know how to spell his name, apparently, (unless you thought it was cute to conflate his name with the orange menace's). But I don't know what I'm talking about, right?

I tried to tip you off about your errors in my post #21, (para 2 & 3), but no luck. I bet you don't know who the AFL-CIO endorsed and worked for in '84, '88, '92, etc., presidential elections, up through '16. I tried to point out Trumka has a decades long history backing Labor Dems to you, but it's like talking to a bird under glass.

You already looked into it, as much as you want, and decided you're outraged, so he needs to do something. (While he is doing something, and you don't know about it, and won't bother looking into it, and won't listen when someone tells you about it.)

It's rich to me that you posted 5 links in your post 5, 3 are ridiculous right wing sources, and the WaPo legit source discusses an exchange between Trumka and (a lousy rightwing source) Newsmax. One of your unreliable sources says Trumka is using the AFL-CIO to beat back gains Rump made with blue-collar workers, so you're doubly wrong. Wrong for using the source in the first place, and then wrong for using the source to say Trumka is backing tRump and doing nothing.

"He needs to reassure the people he wants to continue to support labor that he is with them and all that requires is a yes." Do those words ring a bell? That's 'the people who you represent, who I don't know'.

It was a bit 'shady' of you to tell me I mostly make no sense, there.

Your little quibble is that Trumka didn't increase the percentage of labor Dems that turned out to back the Dem candidate in '16, from '12. Our candidate lost 10% of the '12 support that Obama had, and 3 of that 10% went to Shitler.

The Dems have been backing labor forever? Labor has been backing the Dems forever, too. Officially, legally, unions and the AFL can't order their members to vote for one party. They can't boot members for being repuglicans. I've written reams of stuff here on this site about Labor backing the Dems and progressives, but you don't utilize the site's Journal function, I see, and never felt the desire to weigh in on any Labor Dem activist issue I ever discussed.

But now you're applying to be my boss; getting another new boss is always a delight for a Labor Dem. Telling me what I shall tell Trumka. You're lost in the kabuki theater of allowable 501 c 3, 4, & 5 political contributions, while claiming to speak for voting Dems.

I will never back Rump. Never have. Save the crying about Trumka's putative endorsement of tRump for after it occurs. Trumka never supported Rump, so he would never be 'supporting him again'. By definition.

It was never fine by me that any union members supported tRump. So it's a lame straw man argument from you to pretend that I'm not a Dem, and think it's okey dokey fine to vote for that traitor.

I don't owe it to you to disabuse you of that lame straw man notion.

It's silly to pretend that I need to reassure you that I don't support any union members supporting Rump, while you're openly decrying my use of the phrase 'reassuring you'.

It's silly that you think I should prove to you I work against union members supporting Rump, and silly to pretend that we should discuss your notion that I get the blame for any of those peoples' actions.

You're going to hold me personally accountable? Silly for you to claim 'authority' here, and claim your feelings on the issue need to be satisfied, by me.

Silly.

[Me.]

33. So Shoot Me For A Mistake

It was clearly pointed out in my first post but that's what this is all about isn't it, shoot the messenger. But rather than addressing that a % of union members have voted for the traitor, that Trumka, agrees with the traitor on the tariffs, which will harm out country, that they have seen the damage he has done to this country and yet he still can't bring himself to say they won't vote for him again, you compare me to a terrible RWer, insist I want him to answer to me personally and now I want to be your boss, need you to reassure and owe me. Holding you personally accountable, and I need you to satisfy my feelings? Seriously, where are you getting this stuff?

[Mc Mike]

34. Stop simultaneously playing the victim and going on the attack.

It isn't a good look.

Let me add this: your second sentence -- "But rather than addressing that a % of union members have voted for the traitor ..." -- is an unintelligent falsehood. You proved that yourself with the doublewrong link you posted in post # 5.

Who are you arguing with, yourself?

[Me.]

35. There You Go Again

It isn't a good look....

[Mc Mike]

36. Quoting Raygun? Posting rofls?

I've seen this stuff before. Odd.

[Me.]

37. ...

Hilarious

[Mc Mike]

39. Another great debate point.

You haven't strayed at all, away from the important issues that you've brought up and discussed.

[Me.]

38. I'll Say Goodbye With This

“In fact, the shift among union voters was enough to swing the election to Trump. According to the CCES, Obama won union voters by 34.4 percentage points in 2012, but Clinton did so by only 16.7 points in 2016. That roughly 18-point swing was worth a net of 1.2 percentage points for Trump in Pennsylvania, 1.1 points in Wisconsin and 1.7 points in Michigan based on their rates of union membership1 — and those totals were larger than his margins of victory in those states.”

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/silver-bulletpoints-the-union-vote-could-swing-the-election/

[Mc Mike]

40. You were just laughing a second ago.

Now I have to see you cry again. And you want to tell me that union voters elected tRump, again? Labor Dems are to blame again? Silly.

Do you have any further orders you want to give me, before you wander off?

[guillaumeb]

27. Very well said Steve.

The fact is that there are many racists who are union members, and there are also many uninformed union voters. Sometimes the lists overlap.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

23. When you say "his union," which one do you mean?

[Me.]

24. UAW

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2019, 10:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Was thinking about family member when I answered

[WhiskeyGrinder]

28. He's not a member of the UAW.

[Me.]

29. Sorry

AFL-CIO...

as I said above was thinking about a family member.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

30. The AFL-CIO is not a union, either.

[Me.]

31. Well If It's Defined As A Federation Of Unions

doesn't it make it even more distressing that he can't say no to voting for the traitor in the WH. Is it not clear that the traitor doesn't stand with labor, while the Dems do?

[NotHardly]

3. Nothing has been huge thus far, I have no faith this will fare any better, just the next thing...

[Sewa]

7. UAW president spoke out against Trump

Now there’s a DOJ investigation into his activities. FBI searched his home and office last week.

[Me.]

9. I'm Glad To See That

even though 28% of the members voted for him. They need to get their heads right and I say this while having family members who are both UAW and IATSE. I can tell you that back when PBO was in office many completely bought the whole Con line on the ACA.

[Sewa]

11. Why would UAW members have an issue

with ACA when they have a heath package through the union? I’m confused, doesn’t make sense

[Me.]

12. THey Were Afraid Theirs Would Be Taken Away

and substituted for the ACA which they believed was worthless. Don't forget the view at the time, it lost the House for the Dems. And don't forget the propaganda of the time that was against it.

[former9thward]

14. Are you opposed to the investigation?

This investigation has been going on for years. Already six UAW officials have been charged and convicted -- as well as one top Fiat -Chrysler official charged with bribery of union officials. These union officials were taking bribes from Chrysler to change the contract and hurt the workers. Both the UAW current president and the past president's homes were searched. In order to get a search warrant of a home you must convince a judge a crime has been committed and there is evidence of the crime in the home/office.

Why would any progressive defend bribery to change a contract and screw over workers????

[Sewa]

15. If this investigation has been going on

for years why does the fbi choose 8-28-19 to serve search warrants on UAW president? Seem you have already found them guilty. Not every union official is corrupt.

[Mc Mike]

16. I always have liked Rich Trumka.

[lindysalsagal]

22. Unfortunately, I personally know idiot union members who love trump

and it's ugly.

[Me.]

25. Quite

especially distressing when family associated