Bonior, Edwards, Michigan and the Unions

Sandra Svoboda wrote a very interesting article in today's Detroit MetroTimesabout DaveBonior, his relationship with John Edwards, and the roll unions may play in the 2007-2008 Democratic primaries: http://www.metrotimes.com/editorial/stor y.asp?id=10103

Here are some excerpts, summaries and my commentary:

[David Bonior, who initially backed Dick Gephardt in 2004 before switching to Edwards after the Iowa]the former Michigan congressman from Macomb County makes it clear that the presidential contender he's working for as national campaign manager [John Edwards] has the best agenda he's seen in more than 50 years of stumping for Democrats....

When Bonior calls John Edwards his ideological "soul mate," there's reason to believe he's doing more than spouting rhetoric. Both have strong records of assisting the working class while in office and out. Both support a national health care system. Both are outspoken in their opposition to the Iraq war, calling on Congress to block funding of Bush's plan to raise troop levels, saying America should begin a phased withdrawal now.

And both have launched nonprofit groups to work to promote economic justice and advancement.Bonior launched the nonprofit group American Rights at Work. It advocates for workers and their right to organize into unions. Edwards helped set up the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

"I've watched what he's done since he's left office and certainly he not only talks the talk but walks the walk," Bonior says....

[O]ne overarching question is whether Bonior's long-established ties with organized labor will help Edwards reap union endorsements -- and the valued resources, volunteers and connections that come with labor's stamp of approval.

[W]ith Edwards' current focus on the retention of manufacturing jobs and universal health care, for example, he's got a bigger base of union support than he did four years ago, according to Elizabeth Faue, a Wayne State University professor who studies labor history.

" Bonior would help him enhance those credentials and bring to him union resources, especially political resources like phone banks and volunteers, invaluable in the early, underfunded days of a presidential campaign," Faue says....

Mark Gaffney, president of the 600,000-member Michigan AFL->CIO, says he's "under orders from headquarters" not to endorse 2008 presidential candidates [but Gaffney added] "unions would be incredibly stupid not to go with John Edwards."

I should note that Svoboda also quotes Taylor Dark III, "an assistant professor of political science at Cal State University" who thinks that unions may not endorse any Democrat during the primary, but I find this unlikely given the many endorsements in 2004.

Although a nice little article, Svoboda (Russian for "Freedom" FYI) misses a few key facts:

1. Edwards will also get a great deal of Union support since he spent much of the past two years working on raising the wages of Americans by working to raise the minimum wage on the federal and state levels. He worked with his former colleague Ted Kennedy and fellow populist Bernie Sanders in Washington ( video ) and was a major leader of ACORN's (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now; a national organization representing low-income families) campaign to raise the minimum wage through state-wide ballot initiatives. Those ballot initiatives were wildly successful -- we were 6 for 6: Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and Ohio.

2. Edwards has been all over America walking picket lines and rallying with union workers. Edwards stood with organized labor or walked picket lines for UNITE-HERE'sHotel Workers Rising campaign in Sacramento,San Francisco ( video ), Los Angeles,Chicago, Boston, and Honolulu, with Justice for Janitors at the University of Miami, with the United Steelworkers striking against Goodyear in Akron ( video ), etc. and etc. Edwards has attended dozens of union rallies and conferences and has been a tireless advocate of the Employee Free Choice Act. He was a headline speaker at the AFL-CIO Conference back in July 2005, at the United Mine Workers Conference this past April, and at the Teamsters Conference this past July. In addition, Edwards has been a major backer of the Wake Up Wal-Mart campaign, including headlining a rally in Pittsburgh in August and doing a conference call in November.

3. For all this work, Edwards was awarded the Wellstone Award, an award for those elected leaders who take a strong stand for workers' freedom to form unions and who fight for social and economic justice, by the AFL-CIO in early December.

4. UNITE-HERE endorsed Edwards in 2004 and their members were conspicuously present at all the stops on Edwards' Announcement Tour.
Unite-Here will play a huge roll in the second caucus state: Nevada. Caucus is all turnout, and the Democratic party in Nevada is one organization: Culinary Union 226 of Las Vegas, Unite-Here's power base, the strongest local union in the country, 60,000 strong. And Unite-Here seems already 100% behind Edwards. Union households make up 25% of the electorate in Nevada, and will be a much larger portion of the Democratic caucus vote.

All this and Bonior too means Edwards will almost certainly gain the support of most if not all of the Change To Win unions, and will probably also earn the UAW endorsement as long as he is still a viable winner in the summer of 2007. Indeed, Edwards is doing so well among organized American workers, though he's inoculated from getting tarred as a "sop of Big Labor," that the other side is getter nervous: See Labor's Man in '08?.

Cross-posted at MichiganLiberal and Michigan for Edwards

Tags: David Bonior, John Edwards, MI, Michigan, UAW, Unions, Unite-Here (all tags)

Comments

39 Comments

Re: Bonior, Edwards, Michigan and the Unions

I can't see unions not supporting either Edwards, Clinton or Obama.  Of those three, unions have the most in common with Edwards.  That support can't be taken for granted.  It's not that unions would suddenly have more in common with other candidates but strategic alliances sometimes trump reason.

by gregflynn 2007-01-25 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Bonior, Edwards, Michigan and the Unions

Click on the links, no one is taking anything for granted, Edwards has been out busting his hump for the union movement for some time.

by philgoblue 2007-01-25 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Bonior, Edwards, California and the Unions

Here's an article about how Edwards' strong ties to unions could be of benefit in California:

Edwards Could Benefit Most from California February Primary
by Randy Shaw, Jan. 23, 2007

As each week seems to bring a new stream of presidential candidate announcements, a deal is brewing in Sacramento that could greatly impact the race. The deal would move California's presidential primary to February, when the state's residents are so unaccustomed to voting that it will place a premium on the candidate with the best voter mobilization and outreach machine. Organized labor is the name of the game in California's Democratic primaries, and many unions, and SEIU and UNITEHERE in particular, are closely aligned with John Edwards. Edwards could be the chief beneficiary of an earlier date, though so many other states are moving up their primaries that California's February contest could still come too late to impact the outcome.

LINK

In the same article, it mentions Michigan may move up their primary date as well.

I live in Illinois, and the Labor Day picnic where Edwards spoke (in the Quad Cities area) attracted a lot more people than it had in years.

by benny06 2007-01-25 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Bonior, Edwards, Michigan and the Unions

It's hidden in the diary, but I'd recommend folks go over to TNR and read Jason Zengerle's "The Accidental Populist: John Edwards, Poor Man's Candidate." See: https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=200 70122&s=zengerle012207

Now it's at The New Republic, so it's behind a subscription wall, but (and I understand this might not be kosher) you can get the full article at Ocnus: http://www.ocnus.net/artman/publish/prin ter_27550.shtml

by philgoblue 2007-01-25 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Bonior, Edwards, Michigan and the Unions

I got my Edwards T-shirts in the mail yesterday. Printed on the label "UNITE-HERE" - Union Sewn in the USA.

by clarkent 2007-01-25 05:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Bonior, Edwards, Michigan and the Unions

Unite-Here has been close to Edwards because of the (once powerful) textile industry in North Carolina.

Markos agrees: "And I do know that the Change To Win unions (SEIU, UNITE-HERE, Teamsters) are really gearing up to back Edwards with all they've got making Edwards a major player in the 2008 sweepstakes."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/22/ 12411/3937

It's very small on the my bumperstickers, but I can make out "Local 820."

by philgoblue 2007-01-25 05:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Bonior, Edwards, Michigan and the Unions

Point #4 seems to the big question.

Culinary has a history of staying out of Democratic primaries except at local level where they can make a difference. On the other hand, its widely known that it intends to have a major role in the NV caucus. Bu that doesn't mean its members will participate as a block in the Presidential preference; more likely, they will ensure their members are elected as delegates to the county, state and national conventions -- and one way to do that is to stay neutral in the precinct caucuses.

Also, important to note that although UNITE-HERE is CtW, the Culinary local here is still part of the county and state AFL-CIO, which usually stays neutral at national and local levels for Presidential primaries.

Its also as yet unclear how determinative the union influence will be. The refrain, constantly repeated, that unions will control the NV caucus is in part based on a presumption that progressive activists -- neighborhood organizations, environmental/conservation, women's groups, etc -- can't have an impact. There are some people in the NV Dem party who believe that because they want to. Interestingly, that is the point of view of the leadership of the Clark County party, whose chair is likely to back Clinton, and of the state party, whose chair will stay neutral but which may also be leaning towards Clinton. (Jean HEssberg, hired to run the Iowa caucus is someone who was previously thought to be likely to work for Clinton's campaign in Iowa.)

by desmoulins 2007-01-26 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Bonior, Edwards, Michigan and the Unions

One other thing. Of the 60,000 Culinary members, fewer than 25,000 are registered Dems.

Again, it'll be a factor but not the only factor.

by desmoulins 2007-01-26 09:09AM | 0 recs
Union-made

The JEFP campaign has stated that all products sold through the offical "Edwards for President" store (via the johnedwards.com website) are and will be union-made.

by machka 2007-01-25 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Union-made

Quite so ... there was a mini-controversy that broke out in the Edwards site when a volunteer printed up Edwards supports unions something ... button, t-shirt, something like that ... and it wasn't union made. A regular pro-union mini-swarm descended to point out the problem and get it corrected.

by BruceMcF 2007-01-25 09:27AM | 0 recs
Michigan defining issue is MPG standard...

for Edwards.  If he can stand up in Michigan and say he's for increasing US mpg standards to 40 mpg (Obama already voted for it) then Edwards would be showing some leadership since that is the key to his stated goal of cutting US oil use and the various threats this creates.

If Edwards won't do that, he should not be the nominee since that is one the top priorities for US national security.

by BrionLutz 2007-01-25 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Michigan defining issue is Fair Trade

Are you in Michigan?  You may have noted the loss of jobs at Elektrolux, GM, Ford, Steelcase, Delphi, Tower, etc.

The defining issue in Michigan is whether one is for regulated or unregulated international trade.

On CAFE standards: "Supports real increases in CAFE standards. (Jan 2004)" http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards. htm

"A quick overview of Edwards' stances on major issues should look pretty appealing to enviros: On energy matters, he has voted against drilling in the Arctic five times, supported a standard that would require 10 percent of America's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020, and consistently voted to increase CAFE standards."
http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/07/1 6/griscom-edwards/

And, on a personal level, John and Elizabeth drive a Ford Escape hybrid.
http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1 /12/173417/177

by philgoblue 2007-01-25 08:02AM | 0 recs
United Auto Workers

    The UAW's political website is adamantly against CAFE standards. Unfortunately, the union has bought management's lie that fuel efficiency = fewer jobs. If Edwards endorses higher CAFE standards, he may lose UAW support. Gore and Kerry both won in Michigan even though they were for higher fuel economy standards so it's not a complete deal-breaker.

by MarvToler 2007-01-25 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: United Auto Workers

I guess that cuts straight to the point.  

Since Edwards is likely to stick with pushing higher CAFE standards (in his stump speech he says we can't "ethenol" our way out of this that it's going to take personal sacrifice), is the UAW ready to switch its position and/or trust Bonior and still go with Edwards and go with Edwards early enough for it to really, really help?

by philgoblue 2007-01-25 08:39AM | 0 recs
Many issues are important that Edwards

has in the spotlight, not just unions.
I like his postion on health care to include the mentally ill, no draft, net neutrality, minimum wage, and poverty.

He is on the right side of the unions, along with where he is on the other issues really makes him a great candidate.

by dk2 2007-01-25 06:51AM | 0 recs
"Right side of UAW" is wrong for US

"He is on the right side of the unions"

If you mean specific to Michigan, if Edwards is taking the UAW line and not standing up for 40mpg fuel standards then Edwards is wrong for America.

And hypocritical since he says he's for US being energy independent but 40mpg is the key item for achieving that goal.

by BrionLutz 2007-01-25 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: "Right side of UAW" is wrong for US

At the bloggers' meeting prior to Edwards' speech in Iowa City on the 20th of this month, he did get a question on fuel standards:

Video from the blogger Q&A session - "Four Questions for John Edwards" by RFDblog

It's not a terribly solid answer, but it shows at least minimal awareness of the issue.

by machka 2007-01-25 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: "Right side of UAW" is wrong for US

"It's not a terribly solid answer, but it shows at least minimal awareness of the issue."

Edwards is aware of the issue it's just that he says one thing (get US oil usage down) but did another while in office (voted against increasing US mpg standards).

by BrionLutz 2007-01-25 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: "Right side of UAW" is wrong for US

But the notion that he opposes CAFE increases because he has been working to help unions with organizing campaigns and fights for fair wages and working conditions is just being created from thing air.

The most recent quote from his statement on the SOTU gives no support for that view:

Finally, America will never break its dependence on foreign oil without bold leadership. After years of catering to the oil industry, President Bush says he is finally ready to take action and curb our dependence on foreign oil. But neither his actions nor his proposals match his rhetoric. The President has the authority now to raise fuel economy standards if he wants to, but the standard has been at 27.5 miles per gallon since 1985. Under his leadership, we are now importing 60 percent of our oil, up from 53 percent in 2000. In order to curb our dependence on foreign oil and address global warming, the United States needs a major investment in energy innovation, on a scale that this President isn't talking about. We need to ask Americans to be patriotic about something other than war and involve everyone -- government, industry, and individuals -- in the solution.

by BruceMcF 2007-01-25 09:31AM | 0 recs
by BruceMcF 2007-01-25 09:33AM | 0 recs
Hotline on Edwards' strong staff and money status:

Hotline debunks rumors about Edwards' campaign staffing and fundraising and gives the facts.

Among the FACTS:

Advisers Nick Baldick and Caroline McCauly and other Edwards staffers may have more overall NH experience than any other team.

Jennifer O'Malley, who was Edwards's IA field director in '03-'04, will serve as his state director this cycle. O'Malley is engaged to Patrick Dillon, who is slated to become Gov. Chet Culver's chief of staff. Dillon was Culver's manager and worked on Edwards's '03-'04 field and press staffs in IA.

In South Carolina, John Moylan is running the show again, and ex-party executive director Lachlan McIntosh is recruiting field, political and communication staff. Edwards's communications team is in fighting shape.

And they also mention what they've heard about Edwards' fundraising ... 8^)

 

by MeanBoneII 2007-01-25 08:04AM | 0 recs
Labor support in 04' versus 08'
I've seen several bloggers comment that Edwards's labor support is overblown because labor didn't manage to carry Gephardt to any victories in 04.  But they overlook the fact that AFSCME and SEIU backed Dean.  I doubt you'll see a split like that in 04.  I envision Edwards winning the support of both old (UAW/Teamsters) and new(SEIU, UNITE-HERE) labor.  Factor that in with the new importance of Nevada as you mentioned above and i think this is a whole different ball game than 04 with respect to having labor endorsements.
 
by Jambon 2007-01-25 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Labor support in 04' versus 08'

See the Novak article I link to at the end of the diary.  Sure, he tries to stir up trouble between Hoffa and Elizabeth Edwards, but he did interview union leaders and it does appear that most of Change to Win (SEIU, Unite-Here, Teamsters) and the UAW look like good bets for Edwards.  And the AFL-CIO gave him the Wellstone Award I mentioned, so Edwards may very well get the lion's share of unions that endorse during the primary, and some may come out very early.

by philgoblue 2007-01-25 08:21AM | 0 recs
what's the teamsters problem with elizabeth?

Novak doesn't go into detail so i don't get it.  Why are some in labor uneasy about Elizabeth?  did she work for an anti-labor law firm in the past or something?

by Jambon 2007-01-25 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: what's the teamsters problem with elizabeth?

It was probably some off the cuff comment from someone close to Hoffa that Novak is trying to turn from a molehill to a mountain.  But, he seems to insinuate that it has something to do with Elizabeth being a strong woman who isn't afraid to say what is on her mind and who is a very close advisor to John.  

Still, Hoffa came very close to endorsing Edwards in 2004 even when it seemed the Kerry bandwagon was unstopable, and I think that given JRE's prospects are even better early on this time around that you'll see the Teamsters join the Edwards Team.

I hope!

by philgoblue 2007-01-25 08:37AM | 0 recs
oops

what I MEANT to say was "I doubt you'll see a split like that 08'"!

by Jambon 2007-01-25 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Labor support in 04' versus 08'

I agree with you about the possibility of a split.

I made much the same point a few weeks back in this diary.

by ManfromMiddletown 2007-01-25 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Labor support in 04' versus 08'

Edwards is like a sworn member of UNITE-HERE and SEIU, as well as being loved by the Teamsters.  The AFL-CIO gave him the Wellstone award...they might as well have endorsed right there.  Having Bonior just locks them up tighter and earlier if nothing else (like having a seasoned politico on-staff who knows what he's doing).  

The only question with the national labor unions is 'when,' and not 'if.'  Do they get behind him over the next few months and leverage institutional resources, or do they wait until closer to the First Four primaries and get a big media splash while working behind the scenes for John?

by Peter from WI 2007-01-25 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Bonior, Edwards, Michigan and the Unions

I am so glad to be talking about economic issues and forming strong and unbeatable coalitions like Lincoln did in 1860.  I will be very interested in the healthcare plans from Edwards, Clinton and Obama when they come out.  They are all speaking today and tomorrow at the health conference in D.C., aren't they?

by Feral Cat 2007-01-25 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Bonior, Edwards, Michigan and the Unions

I mention this because universal single payer healthcare should be an important topic with unions and management.  How can we keep jobs here?  Single payer healthcare will help.

by Feral Cat 2007-01-25 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Bonior, Edwards, Michigan and the Unions

And last night during Edwards' video blog Q&A, he made what I think is his strongest statement yet that his universal healthcare plan will not be baby steps, not just for kids, not just catastrophic coverage.  Obviously, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for single-payer, but am realistic that Edwards may want tot take two steps on that path.

by philgoblue 2007-01-25 08:34AM | 0 recs
When is he speaking to the conference on health?

by Feral Cat 2007-01-25 09:04AM | 0 recs
Defining issue for US is increases MPG stds.

"The defining issue in Michigan is whether one is for regulated or unregulated international trade."

The defining issue for the US (and US auto industry survival) is US mpg standards increasing to 40 mpg.

If Edwards agrees with UAW and opposes higher mpg standards then US national security interests dictate that he is not qualified to be president.

by BrionLutz 2007-01-25 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Bonior, Edwards, Michigan and the Unions

Don't forget, as I lay out here, having a labor candidate is key to make sure that unions are doing the absolute most they can to elect the Democratic nominee and to work hard for Democrats down the ballot.  

While Democrats will have labor support, to the degree that we need to be successful in 2008, we need a candidate that is truly of the labor movement.  And by getting one like John Edwards, we further enmesh the labor movement with the rest of the progressive movement for the long-term.  

Barack, Clark, and certainly not Hillary are not going to get labor pumped in nearly the same way as Edwards.  

by Peter from WI 2007-01-25 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Bonior, Edwards, Michigan and the Unions

Great analysis!  I am excited about several Democrates running for president but I am most excited about John Edwards.

It's about time that working Americans have a champion.  Lets put him into the White House.  There is a lot that can be done about health insurance, affordable housing, and urban.  John Edwards has the courage to do it.

by Hellmut 2007-01-26 05:54AM | 0 recs
David Bonior vs Goliath Boner

In the years I have seen and cheered on David Bonior, I've never seen him back down when high principle was involve. I agree that John Edwards is of the same soul. A natural champion.
Like Obama, Edwards shares the youthful exuberance, but adds to it years of meditation, education, and hands-on positive action.
Like Hillary, Edwards is experienced in the halls of government and justice. And yet he is not embraired in the barbs and bribes of office.
Of course all are good and great...

The baker's favorites are served last.
With the tastiest morsels,
and conversation to engage.

Dave B

by anonyMoses 2007-01-26 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: David Bonior vs Goliath Boner

"Like Obama, Edwards shares the youthful exuberance, but adds to it years of meditation, education, and hands-on positive action."

Like voting for Iraq war and voting against cutting US oil usage (see war in Iraq above) by voting against raising US mpg standards.  We'd call the negative hands on experience ;)

by BrionLutz 2007-01-27 08:36AM | 0 recs
Who will solve the problems?

I understand, and I have respect and admiration for Obama as well as Edwards, Hillary and Gore...who are all a vast improvement over the current office waster.

We need for the one or ones capable of solving the huge problems to go ahead and do so...not make emply promises.

The reward? The Presidency.

-dave

by anonyMoses 2007-01-27 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Bonior, Edwards, Michigan and the Unions

"We need for the one or ones capable of solving the huge problems to go ahead and do so...not make emply promises."

Single biggest problem facing the US, the No. 1 threat to US national security is US oil usage.

Edwards voted against US national interest by voting against increase in US mpg standards.

Obama voted for US national interest by voting for increase in US mpg standards to 40 mpg.

The question in this thread is Edwards in MI. Will he tell the UAW he is going to support high mpg standards?

Second question is do we believe him since he voted against US national interest previously?

by BrionLutz 2007-01-28 06:09AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------