Is Hillary pro Union?

[Go Vols]

She touts herself as Obama 3.0.
Obama couldn't find his comfortable shoes when Scott Walker fucked the Unions in Wis.

All Unions are what made us great.

Were you alive at that time to remember?I think your vote would be no if so.

40 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yea
	7 (18%)
	Nay
	32 (80%)
	wash out on it like Obama
	1 (3%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[BainsBane]

1. Clearly a good number of national unions think so

Since they endorsed her.

[Go Vols]

3. Yep

the leaders did,the membership not so much.

[BlueCaliDem]

4. Yeah, that's the running meme with Bernie supporters, but it's not true. SEIU, for example, fully

stand behind her.

[Go Vols]

5. lol,its true

search out any local Union facebook pages and get back to me.

[Go Vols]

8. k

[BlueCaliDem]

13. A few dissenters does not an entire union make. Even here, where we should be heeding the

"a house divided cannot stand", there are too many "dissenters" doing just that: creating division. They need to stop being so petty. Hillary isn't the enemy. Trump is. Try to keep things in perspective.

[Chan790]

45. They both are the enemy.

The fact that Hillary supporters can't see it makes me think investment in Luxottica stock might be a good idea.

Y'all need glasses to see what's right in front of your faces.

[revbones]

14. Got a link to anything that says the members voted? nt

[BlueCaliDem]

18. Got a link to anything that says the majority of members didn't? nt

[revbones]

21. Well I wasn't publishing falsehoods and lies

Such as indicating that SEIU's membership voted, so I fail to see the logic in your response. Regardless, here you go:

1. Very nice chart if you scroll down: https://theintercept.com/2016/01/22/bernie-sanders-gets-group-endorsements-when-members-decide-hillary-clinton-when-leaders-decide/

2. Another article: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/11/18/1451648/-SEIU-Members-Outraged-After-Hillary-Endorsement

3. Yet another article: http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/21/hillary-endorsement-causes-rift-within-major-union/

4. Still another article, and here's a quote from it "The 2-million-member Service Employees International Union approved the endorsement through a vote by its executive board." http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/seiu-endorses-hillary-clinton-215980

Notice a trend? I'd recommend looking things up before making a claim like you did.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. Michigan is a heavily blue collar union state and union members broke 49-46 for the VT independent

http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/democrat/michigan/exit/


That's hardly overwhelming. I also suspect white collar union members voted and will vote differently, leaning more toward Clinton.

[revbones]

49. The comment was about union endorsements.

Not assumptions about union membership

[BainsBane]

7. This is the constant meme

entirely without evidence. At least one union posted their vote tallies that were overwhelming in favor of Clinton. I saw some person not even in a union demand that the union turn over their ballots to them to inspect, like they had a right to insert themselves in that union's business, like the workers owed them something. They don't own anyone outside their union a goddamn thing.

Are you in a union? Do you know how they work? The rank and file elects the leaders to represent them so they can engage in collective bargaining. Without organization, there is no union, and leadership is part of the organization.

Additionally, there is absolutely no proof of that allegation that the unions violated the views of the majority of members. People point to a few odd Twitter or FB posts of particular union members disagreeing with the endorsement, as though it is anything but anecdotal.

[BlueCaliDem]

17. Exactly. A few dissenters within the ranks does not an entire union membership make.

In a democracy, the majority wins. I seriously doubt any higher-ups in a union would endorse a candidate the majority of their membership do not.

[revbones]

24. Wow.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/22/bernie-sanders-gets-group-endorsements-when-members-decide-hillary-clinton-when-leaders-decide/

[BlueCaliDem]

25. ROFL! The Libertarian online news source is your proof?? ROFL!

Yeah, as if Greenwald and Scahill (noted Obama critics and haters of all things Democratic Party) would write unbiased reports. And now, apparently, they're after Hillary Clinton because they know Bernie would be an ineffective president which will open the gateway to a Republican president in 2020.

Thanks but no thanks.

I'm sorry, rev...you're gonna have to do better than that.

[revbones]

27. Just because you don't like the source

Doesn't make it less true. Perhaps you should provide something that backs up your claim if you can, rather than trying to always discredit sources. That is, if you can and that tired trick isn't all you have...

[BlueCaliDem]

30. Just because you prefer the source, doesn't make what they write true, either.

I've long ago understood that skilled journalists - and Greenwald is a very skilled journalist - use certain words to give an impression other than the truth. Fox "News" Channel does it all the time and fools their viewers all the time.

Again, I take anything what a libertarian online magazine says with a pound of salt. Sorry, but old idiom, consider the source, is valid in this case.

Not buying it.

[revbones]

50. Shorter BlueCaliDem: "The truth, it burns!"

You don't really do yourself justice or encourage debate when you just discredit the source rather than the facts.

[BlueCaliDem]

61. And you don't do your argument justice by using biased sources known for hating the Democratic Party

against a Democrat, revbones. Might as well say that Fox "News" Channel is correct in their reporting, too.

Yep, clearly for you, the truth doth burns.

[revbones]

62. Sure. You win. Any source that isn't pro-Hillary 100% of the time is false. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

20. Oh and {{{{{{BainesBane!!}}}}}} Welcome back!

So happy to see you here, thanks to Skinner's amazing new rule.

CELEBRATE!

[BainsBane]

35. Thanks.

It was a very short time out.

[revbones]

23. Which union?

I haven't seen one.

Here's a nice chart at this link though:
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/22/bernie-sanders-gets-group-endorsements-when-members-decide-hillary-clinton-when-leaders-decide/

Just saying something isn't true doesn't make it so.

[BlueCaliDem]

28. Anything Glenn Greenwald is involved in has zero credibility with me. Sorry, revbones.

He's a libertarian pretending to be a liberal. Greenwald is one of the editors and editors decide what gets published, don't they? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept

That said, my union, the SEIU, one of the most powerful and influential unions you'd like on your side when campaigning (because we're very active - ask Schwarzenegger!), has endorsed Hillary Clinton based on their members' preference since 40% of members (including yours truly) are minorities, and minorities aren't fond of Bernie due to his votes in the past that have hurt minorities. We minorities, however, are very fond of Hillary Clinton because we remember the good days of the 90's. Very good years for minorities. And we know how to pick winners (SIEU endorsed Senator Barack Obama in 2008).

So I'd take what libertarian editors of The Intercept say with a pound of salt. Anything can be spun to appear negative if you want it enough. I don't trust Greenwald one bit, and I refuse to take anything he decides to publish with any amount of seriousness.

[BainsBane]

38. Okay.

Last edited Thu Mar 17, 2016, 12:22 PM - Edit history (1)

It was a blue color union. I don't recall which exactly. It might have been the communications workers union.

Just saying something doesn't make it so. Precisely. But that doesn't stop any of you from claiming the rank and file supported Sanders. That chart talks about votes by the rank and file, consultation with the rank and file. What makes you or Glen Greenwald thing you have a right to decide how unions you are not members of conduct their endorsement process? Those organizations don't exist to serve random Bernie supporters or people who earn 6 figure salaries from corporations. The organizations on that chart aren't even all unions, and it provides no evidence of the views of the rank and file. Who exactly do you think is the rank and file of the Brady campaign and Planned Parenthood? You think the Brady Campaign has an obligation to endorse someone who voted repeatedly against the legislation they initiated? In what world does that make sense? PP should endorse someone who said nothing while they were being by the right wing video campaign, whose statement to the media that week related to MSNBC programming decision rather than women's reproductive rights? Who has gone through 12 or more public debates and townhalls without nary a mention of women's reproductive rights?

The conflation of unions and advocacy organizations makes zero sense. It shows what can only be a deliberate refusal to understand how any advocacy organizations work, probably because those doing the criticizing have never been involved with any of them. What is clear is that Sanders supporters and Sanders himself thinks he is owed loyalty, despite the fact he has done absolutely nothing to advance the interests of any of those populations. Oh, he gives lots of speeches, and he and his supporters clearly believe speeches more important than policies that actually have an impact in people's lives. Unsurprisingly, those organizations didn't necessarily agree.

What is clear is that Bernie supporters attacked every single union, civil rights organization and activist, progressive congressman, and women's rights organizations that failed to endorse Bernie. They targeted PP, some allying with pro-choice groups to cut off donations and funding to PP and with it the only reproductive medical care available to poor women in great swaths of the country. They attacked the mother of Trayvon Martin, other Mothers of the Movement, Dolores Huerta, for God's sake, John Lewis, the Congressional Black Caucus, Al Franken, even Elizabeth Warren. The enemies list is a veritable who's who of civil rights organizations and activists. Unions were of course on the hit list because they failed to promote the class interests of the self entitled "progressives" rather than their members. Whether or not you all think Clinton is pro-union doesn't really matter. The unions themselves decide that.

If you aren't in any of those unions, you have exactly nothing to say about who they endorse. It is precisely none of your business, or mine. I understand that concept is incomprehensible for those certain that their views and their rights take precedence over everyone else's, who find it impossible to acknowledge that a view or political position that differs from their own could possibly be legitimate. Such is the nature of self-entitlement.

[revbones]

52. That is too funny!

Using an anecdotal memory to try to disprove something. Then bury your opponent in a vomitous amount of text, none of which being factual, and very little not being insulting to others.

Good on you. lol. Carry on.

[jfern]

2. About as much as Robert Taft

[Go Vols]

6. we are

[Bern2WinUSA]

9. She Pushed NAFTA and is/was a major player in CINTAS Co. not becoming Unionized

She is very comfortable speaking for Large Sums of money in front of Big Banking Executives
and
would likely be very comfortable speaking for major Labor Unions who see her as a Savior.

Personally, I don't think you can have it both ways.

I would encourage you to do some research on the ongoing efforts to Unionize CINTAS and her role in the not happening.

[Go Vols]

11. She is not for us or the USA

[Purveyor]

10. Depends on who she is speaking to... eom

[Go Vols]

12. yes it does

seems familiar.

[Go Vols]

15. I will add the fact,

that Hillary won the Right to Work states.

Keep poor people in their place.

Fuck the Union.

[BainsBane]

16. I'm going to hazard a guess

that a good number of people answering no are not in unions themselves. Yet for some reason they have decided their own views take precedence over unions that endorsed Clinton.

[Go Vols]

19. You would be wrong.

as like most big entities do not ask the lesser for their opinion.

[BainsBane]

39. Don't know what you mean by that sentence

but I did follow the subject line. Are you actually claiming that all or most of those no votes are by union members?

[BreakfastClub]

22. Of course she is. How ridic. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

26. She is? Really?

"An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four (Wal-Mart) stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions. "

and

"A former board member told ABCNews.com that he had no recollection of Clinton defending unions during more than 20 board meetings held in private. "

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/clinton-remained-silent-wal-mart-fought-unions/story?id=4218509

[Lucinda]

48. Her time at Walmart was spent working on getting women in management and

environmental issues relating to the stores.

[Loki]

29. This Union family does.

But it's the Repukes that have waged war on unions, and it's been endless.

[Depaysement]

40. And she has done little to stop that nt

[Loki]

43. I blame Republicans for that not her.

They have decimated unions in this country and you can't sit there and act like it's all her fault, it isn't. Let's start pointing the finger's at the people who have and for the most part succeeded in breaking the unions in this country and it is every republican governor, senator and representative as well as the voters. If she's done little, then so has every one of us.

[Depaysement]

44. Speak for yourself

Many have done much more, but I have done quite a bit for employees and unions.

Republicans are certainly to blame but Hillary isn't really very interested in labor issues unless they are gender based and even there I don't see that much fight.

[Loki]

57. Did you just say gender based?

I can't believe you just said that. Let's just say that I won't go any further with this but you don't want to know what I'm thinking especially since it is known that women earn less and apparently this is ok with you.

[Depaysement]

66. On what planet could anyone construe my post as opposing equal pay for women?

I supported both the Equal Pay Act and the Ledbetter Amendment and just about every other piece of legislation outlawing discrimination.

I said that was the one labor area Hillary took an interest in, but her accomplishments in that area are mediocre.

[upaloopa]

31. another meaningless DU poll

You know Bernie supporters outnumber Hillary supporters on this board. It's like asking a bunch of foxes if we should keep the hen house door open.

[Go Vols]

32. yet you respond

[upaloopa]

33. yep didn't vote

I am a member of SEIU local 206 and I support Hillary and she supports us.


That my friend is reality. Reality isn't a something that comes about because your friends vote a certain way.

[Go Vols]

34. friends= Union brothers and sisters

We are many.

[kath]

36. Where's the box for "Are you fucking kidding me"?

[Go Vols]

37. agree

yea or nay seemed easier/nicer.

[Depaysement]

41. Excellent question

I would say tacit and tepid support, but not as much as President Obama.

It's far down the list of Hillary's concerns.

[PonyUp]

42. Depends on if the wind is blowing toward Unions that day. n/t

[Tanuki]

47. Per exit polls in Iowa and Nevada, union households favored HRC by a 10-point margin

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/22/unions-say-theres-no-split-they-support-hillary-clinton/

------------------------------------------------------------

Contrary to what the Libertarian Times...er..the Intercept.... had to say, here is what an alliance of more than 23 national unions, representing more than 10 million workers, said recently:
http://www.aft.org/press-release/unions-representing-millions-working-people-stand-hillary-clinton

Unions Representing Millions of Working People Stand with Hillary Clinton
“The labor movement must support the candidate whose vision and plans for the country can face the withering scrutiny of a general election campaign.”

Monday, February 22, 2016

SAN DIEGO– Twenty-three national unions representing millions of working people across America stand behind Hillary Clinton as the most qualified and experienced candidate for president:

In a time of growing inequality, many working people no longer believe they can achieve the American Dream of shared prosperity and a brighter future for their children.

Secretary Clinton has proven herself as the fighter and champion working people and their families need in the White House to restore that opportunity.

As she said herself, Secretary Clinton’s life has been dedicated to tearing down the barriers that hold people back — whether they face barriers on the job, at the ballot box, or because of their race, gender, sexual orientation or immigration status.

Secretary Clinton has detailed, progressive plans to create good jobs; advance workers’ rights to a fair wage, a union and collective bargaining; rebuild our economy and our infrastructure; expand access to educational opportunity; advance racial justice; rein in Wall Street; fix our broken immigration system; improve and expand access to health care; keep America safe from our enemies; invest in good jobs in the energy sector; combat climate change; and tear down other barriers that keep everyday Americans from achieving their dreams.

That is why, of all unions endorsing a candidate in the Democratic primary, the vast majority of the membership in these unions has endorsed her.

Our unions are already working together to mobilize members and build an infrastructure to elect Secretary Clinton and our allies up and down the ballot. We will continue to fight for the candidates who will be our true champions. In the presidential contest, that candidate is Secretary Clinton.

With the Supreme Court nomination looming and critical cases on workers’ rights, voting rights, the environment, women’s health, immigration and others hanging in the balance, the labor movement will support the candidate whose vision and plans for the country can face the withering scrutiny of a general election campaign and carry us to victory in November.

There is no doubt that working people will come together to work as one for victory in this election. The stakes are too high.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

American Federation of Government Employees

American Federation of Teachers

International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees

International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers

International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

International Longshoremen’s Association

International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers

International Union of Operating Engineers

International Union of Painters and Allied Trades

Laborers’ International Union of North America

North America’s Building Trades Unions

National Education Association

National Treasury Employees Union

Operative Plasterers’ and Cement Masons’ International Association

Service Employees International Union

Seafarers International Union

SMART

United Association: Union of Plumbers, Fitters, Welders, and Service Techs

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers

[thereismore]

51. So that means she is pro-union? Based on polls? nt

[jcgoldie]

55. when she gets a greater number of union endorsements...

...and a greater number of union voters... I think that's pretty sufficient evidence to say that DU is wrong on this one. Or maybe they are all just stupid.

[thereismore]

63. Or naive.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. The International Paid Off Politician Union. Fighting for the downtrodden Rich.

[Octafish]

54. Ask the Waltons who got rich while their workforce got welfare.

Meet the Family

The Walton family is the richest family in the United States and one of the richest in the world. They are heirs to the Walmart fortune and the company’s largest shareholders, with over fifty percent ownership of stock in the retail giant.

Sam Walton and his brother Bud opened their first Walmart discount store in 1962. Today three family members serve on Walmart’s board of directors; Rob is the chair, and sits on the board with his brother Jim and his son-in-law, Greg Penner.

The six Waltons on Forbes’ list of wealthiest Americans have a net worth of $144.7 billion. This fiscal year three Waltons—Rob, Jim, and Alice (and the various entities that they control)—will receive an estimated $3.1 billion in Walmart dividends from their majority stake in the company.

The Waltons aren’t just the face of the 1%; they’re the face of the 0.000001%. The Waltons have more wealth than 42% of American families combined.

Why does all of this matter? While the Waltons are building billion-dollar museums, driving million-dollar cars, and jumping between vacation homes, Walmart, the country’s largest private employer, is paying its associates an average of $8.81 an hour. The Waltons make billions a year off of a company most of them don’t even work for, while Walmart associates struggle for respect on the job and enough pay to make ends meet.

CONTINUED...

http://walmart1percent.org/family/

Gosh. Any idea how these poor billionaires manage to make ends meet?

[hrmjustin]

56. From a personal experience my brother-in-law is an iron worker and Hillary did

stand with his union against Bloomberg when he gave non-union construction firms jobs.

[99Forever]

58. Not just no.

FUCK NO.

[Lizzie Poppet]

59. Her record says no.

And it's pretty obvious that what her mouth says can't be relied upon.

She's a center-right corporatist. That is what the party looks to nominate. Republican Lite.

November will be a bloodbath.

[Smarmie Doofus]

60. Unions are an obstacle to be surmounted to people like that.

When one's ultimate concern is accruing money and power, unions only show up on the psychological radar screen as something to be finessed, bought-off, etc.

So the answer is "no". Regardless of the fact that some very well-paid national union officers are avidly in her camp.

[TheDormouse]

64. Ask Wal-Mart

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html

[TheDormouse]

65. Is Hillary pro-union? Depends on whether she's running for office nt