| Proud Sponsor |
|
| News Sections |
|
|
| Membership |
|
|
| Features |
|
| Sponsored by |
|
| About the Smugtown Beacon |
|
|
| |
|
| Labor Pains: Are Local Democrats Still the Party of Working Families? |
By: Aaron E. Wicks
|
Posted: Friday, February 19, 2010 8:43 pm
|
Rochester, NY (February 20, 2010) -- This past week another sign pointed to a tumultuous election year: Democrats canceled their annual volunteer recognition dinner under threat of a picket by at least two local unions: the Rochester Teachers' Association (RTA -- a division of the state union New York State United Teachers, NYSUT) and the Board of Education Non-Teaching Employees (BENTE). This decision, explained by MCDC Chairman and NYS Assemblyman Joe Morelle in a letter to members, was based on the principle that Democrats do not cross picket lines -- and MCDC did not want to put its members in such a position.
Labor and Democrats -- an intimate relationship
For obvious reasons, local Democrats and labor have a number of close ties. "Obvious" because Democrats have generally favored many of the same principles that organized labor advocates for decades. Locally, Assemblymember Susan John chairs the Assembly Labor Committee. Harry Bronson, the Dems leader in the Monroe County Legislature, is counsel to the same committee. Carrie Andrews, Bronson's legislature colleague from the 21s LD, is a "labor relations specialist" for NYSUT. And less formally, many a Democratic fundraiser feature the likes of Adam Urbanski (head of the RTA), Jim Bertolone (President, Rochester & Genesee Valley Area Labor Federation, AFL-CIO), Ken Warner (Executive Director of Unicon -- a Building Trades alliance) and Dan DiClemente (head of BENTE). Additionally, one of the area's most insightful political analysts and bloggers, Ove Overmeyer, is a longtime activist Democrat and a local CSEA leader. The list could go on further, but you get the idea: Democrats and labor are at times impossible to separate.
Why such a close relationship? After all, labor has a party of their own -- the Working Families Party. So, if labor finds Democrats too hostile to the labor agenda -- or, as is more often the case, too spineless to fight for it (in the eyes of labor) -- they have recourse to the WFP line. But that line carries with it a small problem: virtually no one ever gets elected on the WFP line -- at least, not SOLELY on the WFP line. The WFP will argue that there are a number of races where votes cast on the WFP line make the difference, but the reality is that if that line did not exist, the vast majority of those voters would have voted for the same candidate on the Democratic line. So, labor can threaten to withhold the WFP line from rebellious Democrats, but the threat is somewhat empty: the most valuable party endorsements in every corner of the state (and nation, for that matter) are the Democratic and Republican ones. Any candidate who loses those quickly find their probability of election in the very low single-digits.
So what binds together Democrats and labor? The usual: money, power and votes.
Democrats like several things from labor that they cannot get in comparable supply from many of their other coalition members:
* Money. Though it is often somewhat over-rated, it still matters. And a local Democrat running for office can often leapfrog into a significant financial lead over their opponent by locking up labor support. Consider this: a local union giver maybe $250, $500 o r more to a local candidate. Suppose that candidate secures support from just some of the unions mentioned in this article: RTA, BENTE, Unicon, CSEA and others -- that can quickly lead to a small warchest of $5,000 or more. And that money helps bring in more, as donors see the labor commitment, the money and support and say "Ok, I'm in, this is a credible candidate." Voila! $5,000 becomes $10,000 without too much effort (well, somewhat easier said than done -- but much easier when labor money is part of the mix). That level of funding helps a candidate field a "credible" campaign, if not a competitive one, depending on the circumstances. So, labor money, while perhaps not huge, can still be critical for candidates at the local level.
* The union label. Although it may not be quite as valuable as it once was, the union label still has some value to a core group of voters, and especially frequent Democratic voters. Endorsements might be overblown in terms of their value, but again, they signal to key members of the local political network the credibility of candidates. A Democrat with no labor endorsements running against one with many of them will have an uphill battle. Some influential voters will wonder -- perhaps at a subconscious level -- "what' wrong with this candidate that he doesn't have any union support? Is some sort of closet conservative?" The union endorsement says, to some voters: "This candidate is one of US" (however that is meant to be understood).
* The people. A keen observer of politics, Professor Richard F. Fenno, once observed that the key to launching a successful political career (at least at the local level) is to have about 5 or 6 people who will "fight, bleed and die for you." The logic of that thought is that in a local race, manpower can make a difference. Five highly-motivated people can realistically secure the 1,000 petition signatures needed to get a Democrat on the ballot citywide in the city of Rochester. They do literature drops, stuff envelopes and network to friends and neighbors to drum up donations and secure homes for fundraisers. How does this relate to unions? Labor unions are valuable sources of motivated people, people wh tend to be more politically active and engaged than most and people who have experience advocating for a cause. Good skills when you need folks to walk the streets and man the phone banks for you. labor support often brings such people and they make a huge difference.
It's obvious why local Democratic candidates like labor -- but why does labor like Democrats?
* Access to power. In Rochester, the avenue to power and patronage runs through MCDC. Just ask Molly Clifford, who has rocketed from party activist to a well-paying job in the fire department. Membership has its privileges and being a member of the Democratic Party in the city of Rochester still carries a number of privileges. Talk to members of the Rochester Police Department, Fire Department and other organizations that have connections to the political structure (through appointments made by the mayor) and you will find a number of off-the-record confessions of people who registered as Democrats because it's "the right party registration" to have. Mayor Robert Duffy, en route to his current job, changed his party registration early in his career to Democrat. Ideological awakening? Probably not -- pragmatic strategy. And unions are among the most pragmatic interest groups you can find.
* Pro-labor policy. Regardless of whether they hold political power, Democrats are attractive to unions for their higher levels of support for union policies. Unions back Democrats because even though they don't support the entire labor agenda, they move the ball -- and longstanding support of Democrats creates the types of debts that labor likes to call in when they really need that help.
A souring relationship?
The relationship between Democrats and labor has not been nearly as cozy of late. Consider these vignettes:
-- In 2007, Mayor Duffy worked hard to unseat Board of Education Commissioner Willa Powell. Powell posed a threat to Duffy for a couple of reasons, first, she is an articulate advocate for working families and issues of economic justice; second, she has the unfortunate trait (for establishment Democrats) of being independent in her thinking and her actions. Deemed not sufficiently deferential to the Duffy oligarchy, Powell was targeted for removal. Labor helped Powell fight back. Duffy lost, but did not forget the defeat.
-- About two years ago, Commissioner Cynthia Elliott descended from the Board of Education dais and accosted BENTE leader Dan DiClemente. Some trash-talking and finger wagging was observed, but given her considerable advantage on the scales, DiClemente had reason to be fearful. Although no speaker at Board meetings should have special privileges, it was odd indeed to see a Commissioner physical challenge and verbally abuse the head of one of the school's unions in such a formal setting. More than a breach of protocol, it was an intentional gesture of disrespect to DiClemente and his members by Elliott. And memories of that event have not faded for those who witnessed it.
-- One year ago, Mayor Duffy insulted BENTE and RTA by insisting that they poisoned the joint meeting of the mayor, city council and the school board by placing placards against the wall protesting mayoral control (Duffy was, at the time, denying any interest in mayoral control -- the unions had him pegged correctly, though). Never mind that the people who made and who placed the placards in question could not possibly be identified as Duffy did, he also asserted that they did this work on school time -- essentially saying they cared more about a political agenda than educating children. Such smears have never been below Duffy, but his over-response to a relatively mild protest struck many RTA and BENTE members -- as well as nonaligned observers -- as oddly shrill. What it really signaled was a deep antipathy by Duffy for these groups, one he could barely contain when provoked.
-- In the weeks preceding and months following the joint meeting described above, labor got wind of frequent efforts by Duffy and his people to lobby the governor on the issue of mayoral control. It was labor that called Duffy's bluff -- or more accurately, lies -- on his mayoral control position. Duffy once again shook his metaphorical fist and could be imagined to remark, in his usal humble tone, "I'll get those unions if it's the last thing I do!" (not a quote, just a literary fantasy)
-- Most recently, in a story reported by Rachel Barnhart and the Beacon's own Chritopher J. Wilmot, labor -- RTA and BENTE in particular -- threatened to picket the MCDC volunteer dinner over the MCDC Chair's support of mayoral control. See both stories for a full recap and the feckless behavior of MCDC leadership.
What's next? Are mommy and daddy going to get a divorce?
Is this the end of the close relationship between local Democrats and labor? Not likely. But consider some of the possibilities.
This spring, local Democrats could opt out of the Democrats' designation process in unprecedented numbers. Once seen (by MCDC more than anyone) as the only "legitimate" path to the Democratic nomination, the designation process has become a joke to local Democrats. The Cynthia Elliott re-designation in the face of substantial committee opposition, the movement by a grassroots group to strike Elliott from petitions and the effort this year by Ken Preston to recruit a slate of reform candidates all suggest a common sentiment: "we don't need your insider game -- we'll do this ourselves." If labor supports one or more of these efforts, it could mean the difference in some local primaries. This is a potential development worth watching.
In particular, the races to watch are the local contests for Assembly. In the 131st District, Susan John's retirement opens the door for multiple candidates. If labor coalesces around one, it will be a huge advantage in a multi-candidate race. And in Rochester's other two Assembly races, both David Gantt and Joe Morelle, neither of whom have received a credible challenge in years (or perhaps ever), such challenges may occur this year. Labor will then need to decide if Gantt and Morelle are friends in principle or convenience. And given Morelle's latest contempt for RTA and BENTE, it is increasingly clear that Morelle is willing to call what he believes to be labor's bluff.
And really, that is what this all boils down to: Duffy, Gantt and Morelle have either taken a calculated gamble, thinking that union angst would blow over -- or that they would simply be outmaneuvered and defeated by this trio and their Albany allies -- or they have woefully underestimated the opposition to mayoral control and will suffer the political punishment for their error. Short of wiretapping and mindreading, it is virtually impossible to know which scenario is true. But the truth is likely to be played out in the current election cycle.
The final variable in play is the volatile situation regarding New York's budget. The state is in a fiscal mess. Not a temporary mess, but a long-term one, one that will last for years, even with principled leadership, fiscal austerity and, something no expert predicts, a booming economy. Fair or not, one of the main sources of blame for this mess is the state's generous pension system and compensation for state employees. Is this the year for labor to rally people to their side and expose insincere, wobbly Democrats -- or is this instead a year when voter wrath will wish a pox on both Democratic and labor houses, electing Republicans and independent candidates in larger numbers? This is the gamble labor will have to consider.
With a front-row seat at the gaming table, the Smugtown Beacon will follow the action closely and report frequently. Stay tuned.
We'd like to hear from you!
If you'd like to share your opinion on this article, please login (or create a membership login) and enter your comments in the "What's your opinion?" field. We ask that underneath your opinion, you provide your first and last name and the city and state in which you live. Only opinions that include full attribution will be approved by our authors. Thanks very much!
Click here to get email updates! |
|
Printer-friendly format
|
Login and voice your opinion!
|
|
|
