175
submitted 4 months ago by 31337@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 136 points 4 months ago

I know the DNC isn't exactly a pro-union party, but the GOP is an outright anti-union party. I am curious why the Teamsters went with this move, perhaps they want increased protectionism to fight outsourcing of jobs? But the Teamsters are largely truckers, ie you cannot outsource these jobs.

Very odd choice.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 97 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's a bizarre thing, but union workers are often conservatives who completely ignore the anti-union sentiments of the GOP. They think the only union in the world that should exist is their own, and no others.

This is how the GOP is able to convince unions to vote against their own interests. The GOP will tell a union to its face how important it is, earning their votes. Then, once elected, pass legislation harming that same union.

[-] Donkter@lemmy.world 62 points 4 months ago

The GOP has also successfully gaslit their base into believing the two best things for unions are controlling immigration and "tax cuts".

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Pistcow@lemm.ee 35 points 4 months ago

Worked in many union shops as a degree operational support function. Typical union front line are dumb fuck conservatives with let's go Brandon bumper stickers. They're making $45/hr and don't realize they're supporting the party that wants them making $14/hr like the warehouse next to theirs.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hYTQ7__NNDI

[-] A_Filthy_Weeaboo@lemmy.world 34 points 4 months ago

As someone who worked in a union I can vouch for this ^

Most of the guys I worked with don't even like the union they are in, they felt they were cheated into giving their money away for "no backup"

When in reality these guys would have lost their jobs YEARS AGO but because the union defends them against management, but because these guys can't do what ever the hell they want (ie call in 80 out of 90 days, taking 1 hour breaks, having todo what their job description says) they just don't care...

They also think "They'll never out source our jobs, or robots can't replace us!" When in fact management DID do that years ago but the Union won in deliberations and everyone seems to have forgotten.

I hate this timeline

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 4 points 3 months ago

I swear people are so goddamn dumb...

Fuck I just looked for work yesterday and found a union job pushing a pallet jack around for an overnight position: 60-75k!!

Every single other similar non union job: best I can do is 35k

[-] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

Most people only consider a few key stances when deciding on a candidate. The GOP is anti-union but that may not be what is most important to truckers in a union.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

The truckers themselves, sure. But the union as an organization should care.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I do generally think it's more of a case where American workers are often reactionary due to America's overall circumstances and Material Conditions in the broader geopolitical landscape, than anything else. Nationalism is a big thing in America, Union or not.

Imperialism also inflates Worker's living standards, as well as keeping a domestic underclass of immigrants willing to work for the barest wages via threat of expulsion. Unions can often be anti-immigration because of this, additionally adding to reactionary rhetoric among unions.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 64 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The secret ingredient is racism

Thirteen former Black and Hispanic employees for the Teamsters International Union filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against the union and its president, Sean O’Brien, alleging racial discrimination over their firings after O’Brien assumed the helm in March 2022.

...

The lawsuit claimed that “rather than maintaining or increasing diversity at Teamsters, IBT [International Brotherhood of Teamsters] fired more than a dozen people of color and turned the Organizing Department from a diverse department into a majority white department”.

The terminations “set back the Organizing Department’s goals of effectively recruiting and organizing non-whites”, it alleged, “in favor of bolstering the majority white membership and leadership of the union. In total, Teamsters terminated 72.73% of the department’s staffers who were people of color, while firing only 28.57% of white staffers. Teamsters then proceeded to hire new staff members who were 73.33% white.”

The lawsuit also claimed that O’Brien “publicly humiliated” the plaintiffs in the case, claiming they were fired because they were “bad apples” and were “lazy” in their work.

e; alright, since someone else brought it up, breaking the railroad strike in 2022 probably didn't do Biden any favors, but the only difference between what Biden did there and what Trump would have done is Trump probably would've tried to find a way to have a SWAT team raid union offices or some crap when he did it, and no union president (whose whole job is dealing with political coalitions and compromises) is going to be dumb enough not to know this, so I maintain racism is the only thing that explains O'Brien's behavior.

e2; Also, every other union saw what Biden did with the rail strike, and y'know what a ton of them did? Endorsed him because they're not getting anyone better this election and they know it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20240716183809/https://www.commondreams.org/news/unions-endorse-biden-2024

https://web.archive.org/web/20240716183830/https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/23/politics/biden-building-trades-union-endorsement/index.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20240716183834/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/united-auto-workers-union-expected-endorse-biden-rcna135444

[-] garretble@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

I can’t even think of a GOP person who wants unions to be a thing.

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago

He didn't actually endorse Trump or Vance which is key. If he had, well, fuck him. But he demanded concessions.

That said: more than anything if you look at the crowd you'll see the remarkable difference between the ruling class attending and the working class base that make up the GOP. That was a speech to the GOP's working class base to make demands.

I have strong doubts if it will be fruitful, but I'm willing to see it out. Took some balls to make that speech without endorsing anyone.

[-] Xanis@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

With questionable situations like this I take into account two possibilities:

  1. "We shall do this thing unless a thing happens that convinced us not too!"

  2. Hail Hydra!

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 79 points 4 months ago

Sheeps voting for foxes. What could go wrong?

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 29 points 4 months ago

In the 1980 election, the PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) union endorsed Reagan. He fired them all in 1981.

[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

Well deserved, I’d say.

[-] el_twitto@lemmy.world 67 points 4 months ago

The Teamsters have lost their fucking minds. When does it ever make sense for labor to side with the party of trickle down economics?

[-] xenoclast@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Getting in bed early with the ruling class. Hoping to get better treatment when they literally (not figuratively) enslave the working class.

Also greed and a dollop of racism.

Still gonna be a slave, my dude.

[-] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago
[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 6 points 4 months ago

I am gratified to see how upvoted this is

[-] eran_morad@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago
[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

He didn't endorse the GOP, which I thought had happened at first. But it was more of a pro labor speech in the belly of the beast. Kind of wild.

You could see the division within the working class attendees and the elitists, with the latter squirming.

The crowd booed Mitch McConnell, for context.

Teamsters were part of the AFL as a “skilled labor union” pre-great-depression. What’s a “skilled laborer”? You can usually tell by their gender and skin color. Teamsters were also anti-communist and had several leaders who were anti-strikes. The Teamsters were a milquetoast union option that the bosses preferred to a real union as a compromise with organizing workers. They grew quickly.

Merging with the CIO cleaned a lot of this up. The symbol of the AFL-CIO is that of a white hand labeled “AFL” shaking hands with a black hand labeled “CIO”.

Teamsters historically have been an imperfect “foot-in-the-door” union. Something to begin the process of organizing and collective bargaining and giving workers a voice, while being willing to compromise to keep power and stay alive. Don’t look to the teamsters if you want radical change. Look to them to expand the reach of labor unions to white, blue-collar workers that are skeptical of more radical/socialist unions.

[-] laverabe@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

He's not going to endorse Trump, but he did give the most pro union speech at the RNC in our countries history. What he did took guts, and it opened a line of communication across the aisle. We need more of that not less.

[-] anticolonialist@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Anyone that watched that speech knows he didn't give an endorsement of the GOP. The speech was largely pro labor, which both parties have ignored.

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

The visible confusion to outright discomfort was rather fun to witness, especially from Trump and Vance. JD was sweatin.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
175 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3962 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS