Change To Win Labor Federation Endorses Obama

Some more labor love for Obama going into March 4th.

From Chris Cilizza:

Change To Win has officially decided to throw its endorsement behind Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), according to Anna Burger, the chair of the group.

"Change to Win is excited to announce the endorsement of Barack Obama for President. We are the unions that organize and mobilize working people and believe that we can make a huge difference on the ground in the upcoming primaries. Change To Win is the new labor movement, the labor movement of the 21st century and we are excited about our ability to make a difference."

Change to Win is the 6 million member, 7-union federation that split from the AFL-CIO in 2005.

Of the group's seven member unions, four have endorsed Obama: Service Employees International Union, UNITE Here, Teamsters and the United Food and Commercial Workers. For Change To Win to offer a formal endorsement, two-thirds of the member unions or unions representing two-thirds of the total membership must agree on a single candidate.

Cilliza noted in his original story that were the federation to take the major step of endorsing Obama, they'd likely want there to be a unanimous vote, which would have entailed The United Farm Workers switching from Clinton to Obama. Cilliza was half right.

From The AP:

[Change To Win's executive director, Greg] Tarpinian said the vote was unanimous although the United Farm Workers, the Laborers' Union and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners had abstained. The farmworkers already had endorsed Clinton; the Carpenters originally endorsed John Edwards, who has dropped out, and the Laborers had yet to make an endorsement. Tarpinian said, however, the three unions released the federation to work for Obama in the upcoming primaries and caucuses.

It's still unclear what the real world impact of labor endorsements actually is in the 2008 presidential primaries; weren't they supposed to send John Edwards over the top in Iowa and likewise for Barack Obama in Nevada and California? But clearly this is a blow to Clinton not only in boots on the ground in labor-heavy states Ohio and Pennsylvania but also just in perception that everything's going Obama's way.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama, Democratic nomination (all tags)

Comments

15 Comments

Re: Change To Win Labor Federation Endorses Obama

Damn.

Well, its a good thing Labor doesn't matter anymore.

by MGarvey 2008-02-21 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Change To Win Labor Federation Endorses Obama

Ignorant.

by Woodhouse 2008-02-21 11:35AM | 0 recs
what a shock.

what a shock.

the same people who divided Labor, now work to divide the Democratic Party.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: what a shock.

How so? Recent exit polling shows Clinton voters are ok with voting Obama while many Obama voters refuse to vote Clinton. Thus Obama will quite easily unite the party.

by Cheebs 2008-02-21 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: what a shock.

you are weeks behind...thats bogus...look at florida...

but this ws more an insult aimed at the idiots at CTW who split the AFL CIO.

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Change To Win Labor Federation Endorses Obama

But, but.. didn't they get the memo?  Obama plagiarized and his wife's unpatriotic!

What's wrong with them?

by Drummond 2008-02-21 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Change To Win Labor Federation Endorses Obama

Heh... let me play salt:

I think Labor is as slow to get the news as the MyDD delegate counter graphic :-)

by zonk 2008-02-21 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Change To Win Labor Federation Endorses Obama

Don't forget that Obama is a deep-cover Muslim, who is really a radical Islamic Manchurian Candidate under the control of Saddam Hussien, who is still alive.

by xodus1914 2008-02-21 09:52AM | 0 recs
Anti-labor union

I know that sounds radical but they have gone so much into this open border agenda it's beyond the pale (no immigration controls, enforcement, limits).  

that means Obama is for this great corporate "one world order" global employer controlled migration agenda as well.  It's a race to the bottom on steroids to have no controls on immigration policy for a domestic labor market.  From what I've seen the "Change to Win" only care about members versus US workers, national interest, US labor markets.

As a comparison contrast of the real unions, which I consider the AFL-CIO to be the ones really sticking up for US workers these days, look here:

Two "Comprehensive" immigration reform bills.  

===== =
Bill - "comprehensive" immigration reform, loaded with unlimited (in effect) H-1B, unlimited (in effect) F-4, plus H-2C (guest workers)
S.2611 (2006):

SEIU - Urged Passage (while token complaining not open border enough, token protest on guest worker Visas)
statement 1, SEIU
SEIU support 2.

AFL-CIO - only action was for amendments against guest worker Visas including those in favor of H-1B limits
vague, Sweeny and others wrote letters saying bill flawed, no action items to support
AFL-CIO   press release

===== =
Bill - "comprehensive" immigration reform loaded with unlimited (in effect) H-1B, unlimited (in effect) F-4, plus H-2C (guest workers)
S.1348  (2007):

SEIU - heavily support, action items, endorsements
statement 2, SEIU

AFL-CIO - oppose
AFL-CIO, statement 1.
=
==== ===

Now while people are lumping the two major unions together as being for "amnesty" there are clear, major differences here and what kind of agenda each union is really pushing.  I'd claim the AFL-CIO is the union really looking out for US workers at this point due to the above agenda and also the ones who have policy that will unionize and address illegal worker exploitation (pathway to citizenship and so on).

Change to Win to me are out of their minds.  There is  no way, none one is going to create a global union fast enough to not stop a massive race to the bottom just through the laws of supply and demand on labor.

by Robert Oak 2008-02-21 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Anti-labor union

Yeah, Change To Win tries to play hardball but ultimately will be re-absorbed by the AFL-CIO.

by Zeitgeist9000 2008-02-21 09:59AM | 0 recs
I don't know

it's about membership and of course having no immigration controls whatsoever is their strategy to do that.  I think what the AFL-CIO needs are more Professionals joining up and maybe different structures, say professional societies to enable them to do that.  There are a hell of a lot of unorganized people out there who really need union representation, yet traditional union structure doesn't quite fit.  So, I see their point on membership(but I clearly think they are now the enemy of the US worker because of it) but I think the AFL-CIO needs some innovation in organizational structure as well.

Obviously I think the AFL-CIO has way more credibility on issues and analysis from my post and watching these two giants.

by Robert Oak 2008-02-21 10:32AM | 0 recs
CTW is a joke

they wasted so many millions in 06...

i know , I got a nice chunk of it!

the political brain power is all at the AFL.

We who work with the unions all know this...

by Seymour Glass 2008-02-21 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: CTW is a joke

I who work with the unions think that's ridiculous.

by Woodhouse 2008-02-21 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Change To Win Labor Federation Endorses Obama

weren't they supposed to send John Edwards over the top in Iowa and likewise for Barack Obama in Nevada and California?

C'mon man, we can do better than that. Edwards benefitted tremendously from the support of the unions that backed him and much of the success he did have in Iowa was due to that support. Likewise, Obama finished within 6% in delegates in NV and will likely sweep the county conventions this weekend here thanks to support from UNITE-HERE and SEIU, among others.

No single silver bullet is going to win the nomination for anyone, but this endorsement is another in the unmistakeable stake being driven into the heart of the Clinton campaign.

by desmoulins 2008-02-21 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: It is disgusting to see these fair-weathered u

Maybe one of the reasons unions aren't flocking to Clinton is because of supporters who use phrases like "union bosses," "people without any character" and "if unions think that they are not dying fast enough."

Would you say the same about AFSCME and the UFW, both of which have endorsed Clinton?

by Woodhouse 2008-02-21 11:34AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads