Labor Unions Now Reaching Out to Republicans

[Frodo]

It'd be interesting to see if they actually get anything from the protection money they are paying out:

Big Labor shells out for GOP friends

By ROBIN BRAVENDER | 11/17/11 11:52 PM EST

For House Republicans, it pays to be a friend of Big Labor.

Major unions are giving a heftier slice of campaign donations than usual to pro-labor Republicans this election cycle, even as overall union contributions to members of Congress lags.

Labor insiders say there’s extra incentive to support their GOP friends this cycle as unions look to reward lawmakers who rebuff their leadership on key votes, ingratiate themselves to freshman Republicans and ward off primary challengers as many tea party candidates campaign on anti-union platforms.

Overall this cycle, about 13 percent of labor groups’ political action committee contributions — just over $2 million — have gone toward GOP candidates, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. That’s still dwarfed by the nearly $14 million in union cash that’s gone to Democrats this cycle, but the GOP appears to be gaining ground with union donors after receiving only 6 percent of total contributions in 2010 and 8 percent in the 2008 cycle.

Leaders of major labor groups — particularly those from building trade and transportation unions that typically donate more to the GOP than other unions — say it’s not a given that they’ll support Democrats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68645.html#ixzz1e7yWsfcu

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

It seems they're just supporting moderate Republicans who they don't think they can beat, but are willing to support against an anti-union crazy.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It seems they're just supporting moderate Republicans who they don't think they can beat, but are willing to support against an anti-union crazy.

That's what everybody does - many companies give money to the people they think will win.

[Frodo]

It seems they're just supporting moderate Republicans who they don't think they can beat, but are willing to support against an anti-union crazy.

That's what everybody does - many companies give money to the people they think will win.

Difference is that the modern Republican Party has an almost religious dislike of labor unions -almost as intense as their hatred of taxes and big government -no matter how benevolent.  So it strikes me that these unions would give money to the one party that seeks their demise.  

[Хahar 🤔]

"Pro-labor Republican" is an oxymoron.

[TJ in Oregon]

"Pro-labor Republican" is an oxymoron.

That's not true. I happened to know plenty of them (including myself).

[All Along The Watchtower]

"Pro-labor Republican" is an oxymoron.

For the most part, that's true, but historically (like late 1800s ) the GOP was a lot more supportive of labor unions.

[phk]

"Pro-labor Republican" is an oxymoron.

Not if it's oil/energy.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Who are they giving to? I WANT NAMES!!!!!

[© tweed]

"Pro-labor Republican" is an oxymoron.

as is "pro-labor Democrat" in this age.

[krazen1211]

"Pro-labor Republican" is an oxymoron.

Actually, the New Jersey Republican party served the beck and call of the NJEA for almost 20 years. Some of the worst pieces of legislation in US History were passed and signed by Republicans.

[© tweed]

"Pro-labor Republican" is an oxymoron.

Actually, the New Jersey Republican party served the beck and call of the NJEA for almost 20 years. Some of the worst pieces of legislation in US History were passed and signed by Republicans.

teaching is non-proletarian

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

"Pro-labor Republican" is an oxymoron.

Actually, the New Jersey Republican party served the beck and call of the NJEA for almost 20 years. Some of the worst pieces of legislation in US History were passed and signed by Republicans.

Like Taft-Hartley, for example? (Well, not 'signed' by anybody...)

[Stardust]

It wouldn't be the first time the AFL-CIO kowtowed to reactionary forces as a way of guaranteeing its continued place among elite political institutions. Look up the 'American Institute for Free Labor Development', which was the labor organizing arm of the CIA.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I wonder how many GOP defeats in 1948 were directly caused by Taft-Hartley being passed.

Republicans have done well amongst union voters at points. Ike, Nixon and Reagan to cite obvious examples. But such was a temporary occurance. The Democrats have been the default option since 1932.

[Stardust]

But such was a temporary occurance.

Oh, I doubt that. Reagan actually strengthened the power of the establishment unions when he invited them into the discussion on reciprocal tariffs against Japan, and it's little surprise he did. The GOP base has always been far more heavily unionized than they ever will be willing to admit. And what better way to appeal to the AFL-CIO rank-and-file than through Reagan, one of their own?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

But such was a temporary occurance.

Oh, I doubt that. Reagan actually strengthened the power of the establishment unions when he invited them into the discussion on reciprocal tariffs against Japan, and it's little surprise he did. The GOP base has always been far more heavily unionized than they ever will be willing to admit. And what better way to appeal to the AFL-CIO rank-and-file than through Reagan, one of their own?

So are you claiming that the GOP has been consistently winning 50%, or comming close to it, of the union vote in 50-50 elections ever since Reagan? If not, I don't see how he permenently changed the overall dynamic.

[Stardust]

But such was a temporary occurance.

Oh, I doubt that. Reagan actually strengthened the power of the establishment unions when he invited them into the discussion on reciprocal tariffs against Japan, and it's little surprise he did. The GOP base has always been far more heavily unionized than they ever will be willing to admit. And what better way to appeal to the AFL-CIO rank-and-file than through Reagan, one of their own?

So are you claiming that the GOP has been consistently winning 50%, or comming close to it, of the union vote in 50-50 elections ever since Reagan? If not, I don't see how he permenently changed the overall dynamic.

Not fifty percent or close to it, but a far higher share than any other conservative Party in the Anglosphere, and aside from the Christian Democratic parties of western Europe, higher than any conservative Party of which I am aware. All this because the GOP is at its heart a cultural-populist Party which has no problem trafficking with such things.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It seems they're just supporting moderate Republicans who they don't think they can beat, but are willing to support against an anti-union crazy.

That's what everybody does - many companies give money to the people they think will win.

Difference is that the modern Republican Party has an almost religious dislike of labor unions -almost as intense as their hatred of taxes and big government -no matter how benevolent.  So it strikes me that these unions would give money to the one party that seeks their demise.  

Which is fairly odd really, it's not like it gains them any votes. Look at Ohio's vote. The GOP kind of deluded itself into thinking that the general public has an extreme burning hatred of unions and Scott Walker was going to be crowned this glorious hero and thus sought to emulate him before seeing if this was the case. Now that it's not they're kind of trying to just put it behind themselves.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Which doesn't contradict a thing I said. Of course the Republicans win a good chunk of union votes, but they don't "win" them the way Reagan did, on a consistent basis. Which is why I called it a temporary occurance, a statement which you objected to. The only way to object would be to argue otherwise, which is simply not the case. 

[courts]

"Pro-labor Republican" is an oxymoron.

That's not true. I happened to know plenty of them (including myself).

Historically the teamsters and prison unions have been very pro Republican, although the former jumped ship what, 10 years ago?

[Stardust]

Which doesn't contradict a thing I said. Of course the Republicans win a good chunk of union votes, but they don't "win" them the way Reagan did, on a consistent basis. Which is why I called it a temporary occurance, a statement which you objected to. The only way to object would be to argue otherwise, which is simply not the case. 

Your statement that it was a 'temporary occurance' implies that American politics follows the traditional model, which is not the case. Most of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing, and they vote Republican all out of proportion to the way they 'ought' to according to the traditional understanding of the political axis. It's not 'temporary', except in the sense that it was a temporary spike in an already-strong trend.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Which doesn't contradict a thing I said. Of course the Republicans win a good chunk of union votes, but they don't "win" them the way Reagan did, on a consistent basis. Which is why I called it a temporary occurance, a statement which you objected to. The only way to object would be to argue otherwise, which is simply not the case. 

The idea that Reagan had any type of special appeal to union voters is one of the most annoying misconceptions that I just complained about in a previous post. And clearly spread by people who never actually looked at the 1984 county map.

Reagan may have improved amongst union members over previous Republican candidates, but in 1984 what demographic did he NOT improve in. The GOP complaining that they no longer perform as well among union members as Reagan is basically them complaining they don't win 58% of the vote and 49 states every election.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Which doesn't contradict a thing I said. Of course the Republicans win a good chunk of union votes, but they don't "win" them the way Reagan did, on a consistent basis. Which is why I called it a temporary occurance, a statement which you objected to. The only way to object would be to argue otherwise, which is simply not the case. 

Your statement that it was a 'temporary occurance' implies that American politics follows the traditional model, which is not the case. Most of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing, and they vote Republican all out of proportion to the way they 'ought' to according to the traditional understanding of the political axis. It's not 'temporary', except in the sense that it was a temporary spike in an already-strong trend.

I didn't imply anything of the sort. I stated that Ike, Nixon and Reagan did better amongst unions then Republicans typically do and such "improved performances" didn't last beyond their Presidencies. Everything was setup as relative to traditional GOP performance amongst unions for the past 80 years, not to some Global concept of conservatism, unions, and the relationship thereof. By switching or misreading the comparison you are basically taking my post out of context.

[Stardust]

Which doesn't contradict a thing I said. Of course the Republicans win a good chunk of union votes, but they don't "win" them the way Reagan did, on a consistent basis. Which is why I called it a temporary occurance, a statement which you objected to. The only way to object would be to argue otherwise, which is simply not the case. 

Your statement that it was a 'temporary occurance' implies that American politics follows the traditional model, which is not the case. Most of America's unions, and certainly the Teamsters and AFL-CIO, are right-wing, and they vote Republican all out of proportion to the way they 'ought' to according to the traditional understanding of the political axis. It's not 'temporary', except in the sense that it was a temporary spike in an already-strong trend.

I didn't imply anything of the sort. I stated that Ike, Nixon and Reagan did better amongst unions then Republicans typically do and such "improved performances" didn't last beyond their Presidencies. Everything was setup as relative to traditional GOP performance amongst unions for the past 80 years, not to some Global concept of conservatism, unions, and the relationship thereof. By switching or misreading the comparison you are basically taking my post out of context.

So if three of the last five Republican Presidents "did better amongst unions th(a)n Republicans traditionally do" - and I actually believe Bush I ran a bit stronger among the Teamsters than Reagan did - when does that cease being a couple of peculiar incidents and start becoming the "traditional GOP performance"?