• Ashyr@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    How could it be anything else? A union that forces its members to vote a certain way would be illegal.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I might not have done a good job summarizing, here’s an old article

      https://www.labornotes.org/2019/09/members-demand-voice-their-unions-presidential-endorsements

      So in 2016 a bunch of unions endorsed Hillary and everyone celebrated.

      Then a few days later we started hearing about the only union members who wanted her in the primary was the heads who had been getting wined and dined by her campaign.

      There was a large public outcry and unions said they’d do better.

      They’re now asking for a sample survey on issues, taking candidates at their word, and then making ng an endorsement.

      It’s better than it was, but nowhere near as good as letting union members submit a vote if they want and whoever gets the most wins the unions endorsement.

      I don’t know how you thought at any point I meant unions could force their members to vote a certain way. What I meant is these endorsements are supposedly to literally be the union as a whole endorsing the candidate that represents them most, rather than u ion leadership trying to sway their members vote

      Which is what this is.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        your expectation for how this should work is flawed and totally unrealistic?

        yes, what happened in 2019 with Clinton was unacceptable.

        but the methodology for determining this usw endorsement seems totally standard and has precedent. like, this isn’t new or strange at all.

        edit: oclabor.org is the orange county labor federation. the linked pdf is a candidate questionnaire from 2021.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I don’t know what weird thing you linked because I’m not downloading random files from someone without a shift key, and I highly recommend no one else download random files either

          But consider the fucked up part was 2016, and there’s only been one election cycle since…

          It feels like you’re trying to argue that because shit got a tiny bit better, we’re not allowed to ever ask for it to keep being fixed

          Which is pretty much the neoliberals national slogan.

          Stuff was worse once, so nothing can get better until it’s gets worse again

          • spujb@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Sorry For Not Using The Shift Key I Hope This Is Better.

            You Are Simply Asking The Union To Give Up Its Power By Having It Just Host Another Unsecure Election Based On Publicly Available Information Its Constituents Already Know. The Union Is Able To Provide A Service By Using Its Power To Get Answers Directly From Candidates Without Needing To Rely On Fallible Media Channels. (edit: think of the service debate moderators provide)

            And, As You Admit Yourself, The Union Is Comparing Candidate Answers With Their Voting Record. So It’s Not Like Candidates Can Just Lie On The Questionaire.

            tldr it seems like you are spreading FUD or something, unions have been doing this exact thing for ages lmao.