Union leadership – USA Gov Policy

Donald Trump’s candidacy may expose a major divide between union members and their leadership.

According to unionfacts.com, “Every day, millions of union members have money taken from their paychecks to support some union presidents’ political agenda… the National Institute for Labor Relations Research estimated that total union political expenditures reached $925 million in the 2004 cycle. Over time, this has added up: According to The Center for Responsive Politics, eight of the top ten all-time political contributors are labor unions. Labor leaders have made the use of employee money for political causes a popular practice — but it’s far less popular among the public and the members themselves…. A 1999 Zogby poll found a majority of union members—nearly 55 percent—thought people should be given a choice of investing their Social Security taxes in some form of personal retirement accounts. But union officials spent millions of dollars to oppose private accounts in the Social Security system.

“The landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Communications Workers of America v. Beck (1988) lets union members get a refund for the part of their dues that are used for political activity…Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010) altered the ways that unions can spend money in federal elections.” Since the contributions by union leaders consistently went to left-wing candidates, it’s easy to understand why progressives continue to strenuously object to that decision, which removed their inappropriate special treatment.

It’s not just private sector unions involved in this practice. Watchdog.com provides an example: “American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees funneled more than $65 million to politicians, lobbyists and activist groups last year… Unions aren’t permitted to use agency fees on politics, but the ability to collect forced fees lets unions spend more member dues on politics. AFSCME did not respond to questions from Watchdog about how the union’s spending decisions are made and communicated to members. Because AFSCME takes its revenue from government workers, the union’s funding of Democrat politicians and political activist groups amounts to indirect support from taxpayers.”

There is a divergence between the monolithic support of union leadership for left wing candidates and causes, and the actual political beliefs of the members they are supposed to serve.

Parents battling cialis uk sales with depression should take note of these side effects before you buy Propecia online. Internet is also a fantastic possibility to find out a vet however, once more, there’s a problem of ED, then you must take a perfect concern to the doctor. cheap viagra In addition to its extreme antioxidant properties, Organic Acai also contains http://valsonindia.com/author/webmaster/?lang=sq buy viagra for women several elements that are essential for long term effects. If you are one among them, you should not take this with more than the required dosage are at an increased risk of developing health for sale viagra complications. It is a glaring division between the political leanings of union leadership and their members that is widening even further. Issues such as illegal immigration can directly harm the wages of many union members. Leadership support for extreme environmental positions, such as driving coal out of the marketplace through onerous regulation, opposition to fracking, and opposition to projects such as the Keystone Pipeline removes some of the best paid union jobs in the United States. An even broader intramural battle is occurring between leaders and members on the issue of trade agreements such as the Transpacific Partnership.

In essence, these battles tend to be about the steadfast loyalty of union hierarchy to the left wing of the Democrat Party, even over the true interests of the dues-paying members.

Now that Donald Trump has become the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, these long-standing splits are about to erupt.

Breitbart reports that “The far-left progressive leader of the huge SEIU union admits that many or most of her blue-collar members are sympathetic to Donald Trump’s pro-American populist message… Sixty-four percent of our public members identify as conservative, and are much more interested in the Republican debate than the Democratic debate at the moment,” [said Mary Kay Henry, the international president of the Service Employees International Union]… To stomp on Trump’s support, union’s leaders are personally pressuring the members, she said…“We’re doing one-on-ones with every one of our members right now,” said Henry. “We’re going into hyperdrive, especially in the pockets of our membership that have a lot of Muslim leaders to stand against what is being said” by Trump, she said.”

The New York Times reports that Thomas Hanify, the president of the Indiana state firefighters union…said that Mr. Trump has so far dominated the “firehouse chatter” in his state. While he allowed that his members tilt Republican, he estimated that most followed the lead of the union’s international leadership and supported Mr. Obama in 2008 and 2012…The potential pairing of Mr. Trump and union members could be helped along by a sense that Mr. Trump, unlike more conventional Republicans, has historically enjoyed a cordial relationship with labor on many of his real estate projects.”

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.