Democrats seethe over Teamsters’ decision to not endorse Kamala Harris

[xser88]

So you have decided the only reason on this planet for truckdrivers to vote for a different candidate than the one you appear to like is they were swayed by racism and misogyny?

Not anything to do with her bad policies that effect them everyday.... (Inflation, high gas prices, etc)?

How can we even take a post like this seriously?

If they are voting for Trump it's because they care about this nation and what happens to it. That affects men and women of every color under the sun.

The least racist and misogynistic thing anyone can do is to vote as a concerned citizen based on the issues we actually face, today, as a nation.

I'm not saying the only reason for any truckdriver on the planet to vote for someone other than my choice is because of racism and misogyny.
I'm speaking of truckdrivers driving all across America in 2024. Many drivers listen to AM talk radio; the American AM radio air waves are dominated by right-wing conservative talk shows. These shows don't just discuss disagreements with the left, they demonize Democrats and those on the left. Racist and misogyny has been a trademark of these right-wing hate speech programs since the 80s with Rush Limbaugh.
This is America, millions of people are voting for Trump because they agree with his racism and or misogyny.

On policies concerning unions?

Harris is part of the Administration making history by joining striking autoworkers on the picket line, who are striking for higher wages and cost-of-living increases against the Big Three auto companies. In the past the White House’s position was that it would stay out of the negotiations and leave the specifics to the union and management. Now when asked whether they endorsed the union’s demand for a 40% wage increase over four years, they answer yes. While in office as a U.S. Senator, Harris walked picket lines in two strikes, and she addressed wage theft back when she was California's Attorney General. Kamala promises to continue the pro-worker agenda of the Biden-Harris administration. Harris chaired the White House Task Force on Worker Organizing and Empowerment aimed at reducing barriers to unionization.

Celine McNicholas, policy director at Economic Policy Institute Action, said, "There are parts of the Biden administration record on benefiting workers that I think Harris deserves unique credit on because she was essentially the tie-breaking vote,". She also said, "With the incredible flurry of activity that...came from the Trump administration, the chaos, I think, actually served to....obfuscate their actual progress on some of these anti-worker and anti-fair economy policies that they really consistently pushed forward. A Harris spokesperson said, if elected, Harris would pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act. The bill would give workers more power to organize and has passed the House multiple times but has not been signed into law.

In 2016 Trump tapped into worker anger and frustration, but slashed NLRB funding. Trump proposed cuts to worker protection agencies. Economic Policy Institute called moves under Trump's administration to overturn worker protections "unprecedented."

• During a live conversation on X with Elon Musk on August 12, Donald Trump said striking workers should be fired.
• Trump made it easier for employers to fire or penalize workers who speak up for better pay and working conditions or exercise the right to strike.4
• Trump has broken his campaign promise to take on companies that move good jobs overseas—instead, he's given over $115 billion in federal contracts to companies that are offshoring jobs
• Trump packed the courts with anti-labor judges who have made the entire public sector “right to work for less” in an attempt to financially weaken unions by increasing the number of freeloaders
  
  
• Trump supported an ongoing lawsuit that would eliminate protections that ensure that health insurers can't discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions
• Trump promised to veto the PRO Act and the Public Service Freedom to Negotiate Act, historic legislation that will reverse decades of legislation meant to crush private sector unions and shift power away from CEOs to workers.
• Trump changed the rules about who qualifies for overtime pay, making more than 8 million workers ineligible and costing them over $1 billion per year in lost wages
• On two separate occasions, a group of Senators wrote Trump asking him to issue an executive order preventing federal contracts from going to companies that send call center jobs overseas, and CWA President Chris Shelton even asked him to do so during an in person during a meeting in the Oval Office. He never responded.

Remember Trump’s union record was so poor that he resorted to faking a labor rally at a non-union factory instead of genuine support for American workers? And Trump attacked the UAW President Shawn Fain on the national stage during his big RNC speech. Fain fired back “Trump is a scab and a billionaire and that’s who he represents" “We know which side we’re on. Not his.”

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So why? Well, there is something MORE important to them than a decent wage I suppose. Teamsters were affected by this legislation...so I assume earning a decent wage isn't their most important rubric for deciding on who to vote.

And, as I noted above, not every teamster is a truck driver.

Some work in professions where it's pretty obvious why they'd be reluctant to vote for Harris.

(public sector groups)

Who We Represent

Municipal & County Workers Public Works SanitationRoad CrewsWastewater Treatment FacilitiesMaintenance WorkersElevator MechanicsBridge Operators Pu

teamster.org

This link lists out some of the private sector groups

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

America’s strongest and most diverse labor union

teamster.org

It shouldn't be a shocker that petroleum workers, law enforcement wouldn't be huge fans of the current democratic rhetoric on certain issues.

Same goes for the retail and hospitality workers they represent in places San Fran and Chicago. Policies passed by democratic majorities in those areas certainly hasn't made their jobs any easier.

 

[rambot]

And, as I noted above, not every teamster is a truck driver.

Some work in professions where it's pretty obvious why they'd be reluctant to vote for Harris.
(public sector groups)

Who We Represent

Municipal & County Workers Public Works SanitationRoad CrewsWastewater Treatment FacilitiesMaintenance WorkersElevator MechanicsBridge Operators Pu

teamster.org

This link lists out some of the private sector groups

International Brotherhood of Teamsters

America’s strongest and most diverse labor union

teamster.org

Fair point. But ALL trades people who buy tools (and frankly, a whole litany of other things after reading complaints from trades folk) were affected by Trump legislation.

It shouldn't be a shocker that petroleum workers, law enforcement wouldn't be huge fans of the current democratic rhetoric on certain issues.

Same goes for the retail and hospitality workers they represent in places San Fran and Chicago. Policies passed by democratic majorities in those areas certainly hasn't made their jobs any easier.

I don't know if I'd agree about retail and hospitality workers given the wage guarantees that democrats have fought for. But....I don't know the situation in cali. that well. What have they passed that has affected WORKERS (don't care about bosses)?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't know if I'd agree about retail and hospitality workers given the wage guarantees that democrats have fought for. But....I don't know the situation in cali. that well. What have they passed that has affected WORKERS (don't care about bosses)?

In a practical sense, if you're a walgreens or target employee...

Do you want to make $15/hour and have things "laid back" and "normal" (IE: the job you signed up for)

Or do you want to make $18/hour, but have to deal with looting (there was a Target in San Fran that got hit 20 times in the same day where people just brazenly walked in and took stuff and left in plain sight), running back and forth with the key to unlock the toothpaste cabinet, and having to play "personal shopper" (not sure if you've seen what they've done with a few of those store locations, but basically the whole store is locked down with all merchandise out of sight, and you have to use a kiosk to pick out what you want and pay for it first, and then the store employees act like "runners" to go grab all the stuff you ordered and being it to the security door), and having to deal with people shooting up in the parking lot.

The perception is that democrats are too "soft on crime", and in some locales (like Chicago and San Fran....which just so happen to be cities where the Teamsters represent some of the retail and hospitality workers), that perception isn't entirely baseless.

 

[rambot]

Do you want to make $15/hour and have things "laid back" and "normal" (IE: the job you signed up for)

Or do you want to make $18/hour, but have to deal with looting (there was a Target in San Fran that got hit 20 times in the same day where people just brazenly walked i..

Sorry. You say this as if the 3$ minimum wage MAGICALLY Started this kind of shopping sprees and also, as if they were the cause.

The issue with that kind of theft cannot be simplified to say "not tough enough on crime". It's too expensive to live there so people choose that way to supplement their income. No it's not right.

But maybe the artificially inflated house market prices due to massive housing corporations buying up disproportionately huge swaths of the market has something to do with it. There are a litany of reasons and the "hard on crime' folk beat to one drum. But sadly, it's not always gonna work.

Recidivism with youth in "tough on crime" approach:
This data really shouldn't be a surprise.

This is a very interesting read that gives the "Broken windows" theory some merit but limited. It also provided several other possible reasons for New York's success through the 90s; including its' economic success.

Some people seem to think that "some people are just gonna steal"...and that's true. But a LOT of people really would rather not. I'd actually argue most people would rather not steal if they had access to jobs and salaries that supported them (though yes, I can accept that can also be a complicating factor).

Tough on crime fulfills the human need to seek justice. But it doesn't necessarily improve a society. Now, I also say that with having been to Singapore; the place where it's 1000$ fine to stick gum onto something or whatever. And my goodness, the place is orderly, clean...immaculate.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sorry. You say this as if the 3$ minimum wage MAGICALLY Started this kind of shopping sprees and also, as if they were the cause.

The issue with that kind of theft cannot be simplified to say "not tough enough on crime". It's too expensive to live there so people choose that way to supplement their income. No it's not right.

But maybe the artificially inflated house market prices due to massive housing corporations buying up disproportionately huge swaths of the market has something to do with it. There are a litany of reasons and the "hard on crime' folk beat to one drum. But sadly, it's not always gonna work.

No, I'm not saying the wage increase was the cause, I'm saying that the wage increase doesn't offset the other stuff in the minds of some folks.

It's two separate sets of policy lanes.


It'd be like if a particular party
A) Pushed for firemen to get 15% raises
but also
B) Pushed to relax fire codes and restrictions that ended up making the firemen's jobs much more hectic and stressful than it already was.


Some would probably prefer to forego A, in order to not have to deal with the negative effects of B.

Recidivism with youth in "tough on crime" approach:
This data really shouldn't be a surprise.

This is a very interesting read that gives the "Broken windows" theory some merit but limited. It also provided several other possible reasons for New York's success through the 90s; including its' economic success.

Some people seem to think that "some people are just gonna steal"...and that's true. But a LOT of people really would rather not. I'd actually argue most people would rather not steal if they had access to jobs and salaries that supported them (though yes, I can accept that can also be a complicating factor).

Tough on crime fulfills the human need to seek justice. But it doesn't necessarily improve a society. Now, I also say that with having been to Singapore; the place where it's 1000$ fine to stick gum onto something or whatever. And my goodness, the place is orderly, clean...immaculate.

Firstly, from the footage I've seen of some of these mass lootings other things that are happening, it's not juveniles responsible for most of it, its opportunistic adults.

And while I can accept the fact that there are some down on their luck folks who probably feel like they have no choice, that sympathy is limited to people stealing necessities. If you look at some of the footage that local news outlets release of some of the "looting flash mob" occurrences that were happening, they weren't stealing bread and food staples, they were stealing non-essentials. There's no sympathetic tone warranted for a group of 6 people sprinting into a Sephora or Bath & Body words to steal body spray and lotions...or like the Best Buy incident in Cali where a group of a dozen people sprinted in, busted open the PS5 game case, and ran back out holding as many video games as they could carry.



There's a difference between what's pejoratively referred to as the "tough on crime" vs. being too soft on crime. While I would agree that someone shouldn't be getting 15 years in prison for stealing a blu ray player... at that same time, reducing it to a slap on the wrist "catch & release" misdemeanor with the rationale of "it's not that big a deal, the store owners have insurance, they can just file a claim". There was that story out of Philly where a Footlocker was looted twice in the same day, and there were some of the same people involved in both incidents. Which means they were caught, arrested, processed, and released back out into the wild and literally went back and hit the same store again that same day.

That indicates the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction.


To use an analogy. If a person gets caught drunk driving but didn't hurt anyone, a life sentence is obviously way too harsh...however, a slap on the wrist $50 fine and no further consequences beyond that would be way too soft.