John Sweeney: His Grand Design to return Dems to power failed.
Posted on 07/28/2005 5:59:59 AM PDT by OESY
The bolt in Chicago from the AFL-CIO by the Teamsters and Service Employees International Union reflects a long-building reaction to John Sweeney's plans a decade ago when he muscled his way into the labor federation presidency. He wanted to restore union power through politics. His project was a total failure, and the AFL-CIO is in ruins 50 years after its creation.
The scenario of the breakup was accurately laid out to me by Teamsters sources nearly a year ago. Sweeney would be offered a deal he could not accept. To keep the two big unions in the federation, Sweeney would have had to agree to a six-month tenure as president and a sharp reduction in the share of union dues to the AFL-CIO. The $10 million a year each saved by the Teamsters and the SEIU means money that has gone into Democratic coffers will be used for organizing.
That's why Democratic strategists wring their hands, fearful that the financial drought caused by the events in Chicago will undermine the party in the 2006 midterm elections. But James P. Hoffa of the Teamsters and Andrew Stern of the SEIU have rejected organized labor's political illusion. They may not know how to cure what ails the nation's unions, but they cannot buy Sweeney's notion that salvation lies in electing Democratic politicians.
When lifetime union bureaucrat Sweeney became president Oct. 25, 1995, it soon became clear he planned a massive effort for the Democrats and labor to regain control of the whole federal government that had been lost when Republicans won control of Congress.
Sweeney's political illusion was that the conjunction of Democratic control of the Senate, House and presidency would somehow restore labor's health (though that alignment was not therapeutic when it existed during Bill Clinton's first two years as president). In any event, pouring labor money into Democratic coffers proved an absolute failure, climaxed by Republican victories in 2000, 2002 and 2004.
Stern's distance from Sweeney's emphasis on politics was indicated by one of the few surprises at last summer's Democratic national convention in Boston. In an interview with the Washington Post, Stern said, ''I don't know if'' the movement to reform labor ''would survive with a Democratic president.'' Although Stern backtracked after the predictable furor broke, he had indicated how unimportant John Kerry was in his grand design.
Hoffa never has disguised his low opinion of Sweeney's grand design. When he became president in 1999, Hoffa opposed using the Teamsters as ''an ATM for the Democratic Party.'' Seven years later in this week's Chicago press conference, Hoffa said he objected to the AFL-CIO increasing ''money to throw at politicians.''
In his first year at the union's helm, Hoffa indicated he wanted to throw a little money at Republicans as well as Democrats. He visited the 2000 Republican convention in Philadelphia, and the Teamsters' tepid endorsement of Al Gore came late. Hoffa and George W. Bush exchanged official visits after the 2000 election, and the Teamsters vigorously supported the administration on drilling in ANWR.
But one disappointment after another followed for Hoffa in dealing with Bush. The Teamsters faced opposition from the administration on the Mexican long-distance truck question and on tougher union reporting requirements. Worst of all, government oversight of the Teamsters under a consent decree was not lifted.
The gap between the Teamsters and the Democrats has not brought the union closer to the Republicans. ''The bridge between us and the White House is gone,'' one Teamsters political operative told me, ''and it never will be rebuilt.'' That condition was underlined recently when, according to Teamsters sources, Republican House Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner said he could not help on pension portability desired by the unions because the White House was opposed.
Hoffa, Stern and other labor leaders who are about to leave the AFL-CIO are still Democrats, but they doubt that sinking members' dues into the bottomless pit of political expenditures answers their problems. That may be the beginning of wisdom.
I have never understood why the unions went whole hog for the Democrat Party. What do they get out of it from the Dems? Nothing. However, they give their hard earned dues and spew out the Democrat talking points: gay 'rights', pro abortion, extreme enviro position, anti business, etc. Even when it could possibly hurt their cause, as when unioncrats are against drilling in ANWR. How could a group of people who get their money from building huge sport utes and trucks be anti drilling for oil? Being anti-business is just stupid. Hint: If it helps your company, it helps you.
In the article it says that the Teamsters vigorously supported drilling in ANWR. Was some other labor-type against it?
Just about all of the other unions opposed ANWR drilling...acting on marching orders from the Democratic Party.
Ping for Novak's take on the union breakup...
more liberals fall into the much. Don't you just love it!
Yea, the Laborer's officers said that they would love to see drilling in ANWR, I heard them say it personally. However, they couldn't get the demos to budge on it, and so they just sat back. Yet another instance of the union bosses choosing the politicians over what was best for the rank and file members.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.