Bernie's campaign staff makes history by being the first to unionize

[liberalnarb]

Sen. Bernie Sanders' 2020 campaign announced Friday it will be the first major presidential campaign to have a unionized workforce, as party activists push Democratic candidates to mirror their progressive platforms within their own campaigns.

“Bernie Sanders is the most pro-union candidate in the field, he’ll be the most pro-union president in the White House and we’re honored that his campaign will be the first to have a unionized workforce,” Sanders' campaign manager Faiz Shakir said in a statement.


Over the past week, a majority of the staff's bargaining unit employees designated United Food and Commercial Workers Local 400 to represent them. The campaign stayed neutral during organizing efforts and voluntarily recognized the union once a majority of staffers signed union cards, according to both the campaign and the union.

Walking the walk. Go Bernie!

POLITICO

[NurseJackie]

1. Why? What purpose does it serve?

[thewhollytoast]

2. Why always so nasty?

[NurseJackie]

3. I don't know what you're talking about.

[Eliot Rosewater]

23. nasty?

[George II]

24. I've always found NJ to be pleasant but to the point. Maybe it's because my wife was a nurse....

....and her favorite Showtime program was "Nurse Jackie".

If honesty is "nasty", I guess I'm pretty nasty too!

[NurseJackie]

25. When someone says "you're nasty" it ACTUALLY means "I feel threatened by you".

I've always found NJ to be pleasant but to the point.

Thank you for the kind words.

You know... When someone says to me "you're nasty" it ACTUALLY means "I feel threatened by you".

Those types of personal attacks and insults are usually a way for someone to compensate for their feelings of insecurity.

[George II]

27. When I read that I thought of this:

[NurseJackie]

47. I also thought of this...

[lapucelle]

33. ...

Have as donut.

Link to tweet

[Me.]

51. Always So Nasty?

[karynnj]

4. I would imagine it would serve the purposes that unions always serve

Remember slogans like "workers united will never be defeated"? The idea in business was that if the entire non management workforce was represented by a union, there was a more equal playing field between the workers and the employer. Without a union, any employee, without any unique skill that rendered him or her more valuable than a similar person who could be hired, would have little leverage to argue for higher wages or anything else.

In a campaign, which exists for at most a few years, this might be even more important. Think of all the complaints made against many campaigns, wouldn't a union allow an internal mechanism that might be able to fix these problems early on?

Do you think unions are valuable to help people with relatively little power individually?

[lapucelle]

34. Like protecting workers from the abuses of management, including unsafe work conditions,

pay disparity, and harassment.

This is a victory for BS's campaign workers.

[liberalnarb]

5. Practice what you preach I would think.

[R B Garr]

6. It does seem gimmicky, so not surprised. It reminds

me of those class projects where you do some real/life exercise which count as credit. I had a copyright class once where we had to take a picture we had personally taken and then follow the teachers instructions along the way of getting the picture copyrighted and fill in our experiences and the final copyright confirmation.

In real life, it didn’t mean anything, but it was class credit, so that was real life at the time.

This seems a bit gimmicky.

[lapucelle]

35. Remember when BS missed the Russia sanctions vote in January

because he had to meet with the former campaign workers who had blown the whistle on what had happened in his last campaign?

Maybe the whistleblowers insisted on unionization to protect BS campaign workers going forward.

[Skidmore]

9. Most likely to have

a grievance process to address sexual harassment issues should they arise again this time around? That the women on his 2016 campaign just were able to get him to pay attention to their grievances only this year is sickening. Does not recommend him to me as someone who takes such issues seriously.

[NurseJackie]

10. Ah... I'd almost forgotten about the sexual harassment stuff.

That certainly makes sense. If that's the case, then someone wanting to reframe an embarrassing negative into a positive would be an understandable strategy.

[ehrnst]

16. That will impact his campaign.

What Masha Mendieto reported was very disturbing.

I read that the meeting a few months ago that was requested by former staffers was because they feared that it had not been addressed, or dealt with, and those issues might be repeated.

[Hortensis]

20. This is looking like a clever move. It's pro-union

and Democrats tend to like that. I know I do.

It's also clearly a way of handling the public fallout of Sanders' problem with female staff. Now any mention of misogyny and ignored abuse will provide the opportunity to seque to unionization and pointing out that his operation now has a union to take any complaints to.

I'm remembering that Sanders explained that he actually skipped the critical vote trying to block the Republicans from lifting sanctions on Russian oligarch Deripaska in order to meet with women who'd made public complaints. We came within just a couple of votes of carrying it; one more Republican might have had an attack of conscience and Sanders not been there. So if that was the reason, seemingly dealing with his staff problem was of such high priority to him that he didn't dare even reschedule his meeting with them. Perhaps unionizing as a solution was agreed on at that meeting.

[Squinch]

32. Too bad he couldn't find a way to schedule two crucial things.

[Hortensis]

40. Too bad I was never able to find that excuse credible.

If he could have rescheduled his personnel-problems meeting (and what United States Senator cannot when there's an extremely important vote to show up for?), that would mean he refused to vote to block the lifting of Russian sanctions for some other reason. I'm actually a lot more curious about why he would potentially risk letting the Republicans and Russia prevail against Senate Democrats than about his tax returns.

[NurseJackie]

45. He had already voted against the sanctions once before, right? I doubt...

He had already voted against the sanctions once before, right? I doubt that his opinion had changed in the interim. I have sincere doubts that he'd have voted for them this time. It was a NO-WIN vote for him. He could vote for the sanctions this time (and be accused of hypocrisy) or he could vote against them (consistent, yes... but also a gift to Russia). My best guess is that this "meeting" was a convenient excuse to miss the vote.

[Hortensis]

48. We end up at the same point, but fwiw it seems reasonable

to also consider that his refusals to stand against the Republicans and Russia on sanctions could have been for the same reason both times, but that the excuses he gave before wouldn't work this time.

I'm remembering that at the same time the Republicans were helping him create the appearance of a foreign affairs expertise he didn't have since he wasn't on any of our foreign relations committees. And, after all, he had not yet "pledged" to the Democratic Party. Independent doesn't mean anything if a senator can't go his own way.

Fwiw, I believe that this time Sanders would not not last through Super Tuesday without Russia's assistance. He never needed to actively seek it, merely being a dissident-left candidate made him very useful. The Mueller investigation established that Russia was using him to defeat Democrats in 2016, and our intelligence services say they're doing the same this time.

We also know that the sanctions have been extremely hurtful to Russia (and very personally enraging to Putin) and that, then and now, their removal is of paramount, even potentially existential importance to Russia.

But Sanders says he had to attend an office meeting. And I'm also keeping open the possibility that to him that really might have been more important. His mind goes where mine is unable to follow.

[Squinch]

46. Ayup.

[nolabear]

44. That was my question too. If you can't question that's a real problem.

What’s the point? I don’t understand how it would work in this situation. I’d like to.

[R B Garr]

7. Why would any other candidate be pushed to mirror

Bernie’s campaign when he has had so many unreconciled problems. His would be the last I would emulate. There are unreconciled FEC flags, huge payments to “media consultants”, open harassment claims. This attempt to unionize is just a gimmicky distraction. I just find it appalling that the focus on a union is being used as pressure on other candidates to prove themselves in light of the other outstanding issues.

[liberalnarb]

8. Bullcrap. Nt

[R B Garr]

11. It literally spells this out in the very first sentence

of the article in the OP.

[liberalnarb]

19. This?:

Sen. Bernie Sanders' 2020 campaign announced Friday it will be the first major presidential campaign to have a unionized workforce, as party activists push Democratic candidates to mirror their progressive platforms within their own campaigns.

I don't see anything in that sentence or the rest of the article about FEC flags, media consultants or harassment.

[R B Garr]

22. This isn't the only article written about Bernie's campaign.

You can google those items and see.. I didn’t even get into Tad Devine that much, but the media consultant payments are quite interesting.

[ehrnst]

18. Actually, no, not at all.

I hope that clarifies things.

[NurseJackie]

12. Excellent analysis. (Not "bullcrap")

[George II]

14. I think it's a preemptive act in case the same issues arise next year that arose in the past.

Companies or organizations usually unionize to protect workers against pay/position inequality, sexual abuse or harassment, or poor working conditions. Apparently based on past issues these employees felt the need to unionize to protect against a recurrence of such problems.

[R B Garr]

15. That would make sense, but then why not be honest about it

and explain that this was a corrective measure they are implementing to assure all parties. Instead it’s being presented as a competition with other campaigns (they are the first!) and a way to say others who don’t “mirror” are not progressive enough. Why not just be honest.

[ehrnst]

17. +1000. (nt)

[George II]

52. Considering the dearth of abuse and harassment claims in other campaigns, their workers...

...probably don't feel the need to seek the protection of a labor union.

Also, it's interesting that a year or so ago when her chief of staff was accused of sexual harassment, Elizabeth Esty was forced to resign (actually she finished out the short remainder of her term and didn't seek re-election). That was ONE person on her staff. Yet we have dozens of complaints of abuse, harassment, and pay inequality in another campaign but it's just pooh poohed and the campaign goes on.

I suppose that's the difference between being a woman vs. being a man.

[George II]

13. Considering the many complaints of gender inequality, sexual harassment, and abuse....

....that occurred during the last campaign, this appears to be a preemptive act on the part of his campaign employees. It will provide a true grievance process should the issues of several years ago arise again.

[brooklynite]

21. So what you're saying is: Bernie can't be trusted to offer a fair wage?

Otherwise this is mere symbolism.

[Squinch]

30. No. It also gives people recourse when they have complaints about how the campaign is

treating them. That was not in place for the last campaign, as we saw in the complaints of sexism. This is a good thing, and it is needed.

[lapucelle]

36. To be fair, BS was too "busy running around making the case" to pay attention

to work conditions on his campaign.

At least his employees have some redress now.

[BlueWI]

49. It's perfectly ok to compliment the choice to unionize

and still oppose the candidate's nomination.

I bet the employees on the campaign appreciate this, as all Democrats should who favor collective bargaining.

[Mike Nelson]

26. Nice idea...

… there are so many people supporting the candidates... some give donations and work for little, or no pay. When things go wrong for them, who helps? It's nice to see some organized force in support of the staffers!

[Kurt V.]

28. union good. not complicated.

[Squinch]

29. Good thing. Sounds like they need it.

[lapucelle]

31. Smart of them to hold management's feet to the fire after the unfair and unsafe work conditions

women had to endure last time around.

Former Bernie Sanders Staffers Voice Concerns About 'Sexual Harassment and Violence' on 2016 Campaign

http://time.com/5490813/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexual-harassment/

Bernie alumni seek meeting to address ‘sexual violence’ on ’16 campaign

People involved in the effort said they signed the letter before Sanders (I-Vt.) officially launches a 2020 presidential bid in the hope that it would lead to real action if and when the senator begins assembling his team. Organizers wrote they wanted the meeting to produce a plan for “implementing concrete sexual harassment policies and procedures; and a commitment to hiring diverse leadership to pre-empt the possibility of replicating the predatory culture from the first presidential campaign.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/30/bernie-sanders-campaign-harassment-1077014

Sexism Claims From Bernie Sanders’s 2016 Run: Paid Less, Treated Worse

Two delegates who supported Mr. Sanders two years ago recently told his staff that he can’t run for president again without addressing the sexism they believe surfaced in his last campaign.

“There was an entire wave of rotten sexual harassment that seemingly was never dealt with,” one of the delegates wrote in a December email, obtained by The New York Times, to a Sanders political strategist.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexism.html

[rgbecker]

37. Never in my life did I think on DU I would be reading complaints about an employer

making sure his employees had a union.

WTF?

The place has been invaded by trolls....or something.

The hatred for Bernie Sanders is so thick. I hope Admin gives them their own forum soon.

Just in two days: 1. Bernie, drunk and mad about Beto's announcement head butts a glass door and says he didn't really need stitches and did not fall but even though that seems a bit off, it must be something and his staff are just lying about it all.

2. Bernie thinks having a unionized staff will win him lots of support so why else would he do such a thing? Or maybe his employees were going to all quit because of the harassment which led him to miss the Russian Sanction vote and he was forced into unionizing because unlike the employees at Walmart, Home Depot and rest they just don't like the way they are treated by Bernie.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

38. Employers don't make sure employees have unions. Employees do.

[George II]

42. Employees don't go through the unionization process just for the exercise....

...they do so when there are workplace conditions that warrant it, or they see a potential future reason to be unionized.

It would be more appropriate for them to join the Campaign Workers Guild than United Food and Commercial Workers. They're neither food nor commercial workers. Makes one wonder why they chose that one.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

43. Exactly.

UFCW represents quite a few workers who are neither food nor commercial workers; it's a big umbrella.

[rgbecker]

54. Indeed, hundreds of Thousands of employees don't have unions

because Employers are working overtime to keep Employees from making sure they have a union.

Bravo for the success of Bernie's staffers!

[BlueWI]

50. Any credit to the Sanders campaign is a problem for

a vocal minority on DU. That much is obvious.

[NurseJackie]

53. That they felt a union was needed really isn't something to brag about.

Any credit to the Sanders campaign is a problem for

That they felt a union was needed really isn't something to brag about. But, I guess trying to frame it as being a "positive" is pretty much the only option they have. Can't blame them for trying.

All I'm saying is, most people can tell the difference even with the positive "spin"... and it has nothing to do with a "vocal minority" (whatever that's supposed to mean.)

[Power 2 the People]

67. +1000

[WhiskeyGrinder]

39. Sanders' campaign dragged its feet when its workers wanted to organize with the CWG. Why?

Looking forward to see how negotiations go.

[Power 2 the People]

55. Bernie always leading the way forward. Let's hope the other candidates follow suit.

[R B Garr]

59. The other candidates don't have campaign harassment and

gender pay inequities they are trying to deflect. Making this about other Democrats is just a distraction.

[Power 2 the People]

60. Sadly they do RB

But thank you for your input.

[R B Garr]

61. Actually, they don't. None of them have been confronted

in the magnitude as Sanders was. He is in a unique position. None of the others deserve pre/emptive finger pointing from his campaign. He should be honest about the reason this union is forming and leave others out if it.

[Power 2 the People]

62. You are incorrect. Usually I don't bother to respond but perhaps you missed these in the news.

Look up the names:

Burns Strider
Larry Wallace
Abbas Malik

All SENIOR AIDES,not staffers, who were forced to leave due to continued,unchecked sexual harassment.

To make it seem as though sexual harassment is unique only to the Sanders campaign is ridiculous and a mathematical impossibility when you have thousands of staff and volunteers working on a campaign. The lengths some people will go to demonize Bernie Sanders is astonishing.

And then of course there's Anita Hill.

[R B Garr]

63. That is just desperation to compare one named person to

literally dozens of campaign staff who shared universal harassment stories from all levels of management. The facts don’t support your distractions. The harassment claims were unique to Bernie’s campaign.

Anita Hill was decades ago. Bernie has open harassment claims in the MeToo era.

[Power 2 the People]

64. Unbelievable.

[R B Garr]

65. Facts don't support your distractions, sorry.

Presumably, every campaign will have a gamut of personnel problems. The problems with Bernie’s were documented major grievances from a multitude of women, facts.

[Power 2 the People]

66. This thread was about the great accomplishment of Bernie unionizing campaign workers.

Why did you veer off into the non-sequitur of sexual harassment? Don't you think unionizing campaign members is a good thing? As a Democrat shouldn't you be cheering and praising what he did?

[R B Garr]

68. I expect him to be honest, so I'll cheer when he accepts

responsibility for his campaign problems and why he had to unionize. Insisting Democrats copy him when they have no similar campaign abuses is just a ploy to change the subject from his campaign.

[Power 2 the People]

69. OK RB

[namahage]

56. If he was such a leader in this field,

why didn't he do this in 2016?

Imagine what the optics would have been then in a primary against Hillary.

Or hell, why didn't he go for unionization of his staff in the 2018 campaign? Randy Bryce was able to do so, why couldn't he? Or did he feel he had it all sewn up and wouldn't need to make such a headline (and donation)-seeking move?

I guess that means he's only learned to "walk the walk" fairly recently...

[BlueWI]

57. If he's not a leader in this area

there must be several more candidates with unionized staffs.

Feel free to name them.

[R B Garr]

58. +1, this isn't about leadership. It's about deflection.

By pointing fingers at other Democrats for not unionizing, he gets to deflect from the abuses of his own campaign.

He should have been honest that this move is unique to his campaign for the harassment claims against his own. It’s a shame he wasn’t honest.