Labor and the Elections

LaborTalk (November 2, 2006}

Union Households to Vote Big for Dems;
Candidates Mostly Ignore Labor Issues

By Harry Kelber

Both the AFL-CIO and Change to Win are conducting massive voter turnout
campaigns, especially in key industrial states, like Ohio, Pennsylvania and
Michigan, and in close election races around the country.

The turnout for the 2006 midterm elections is expected to be unusually high,
since its outcome will determine whether the Republicans retain the House
and Senate or the control of Congress passes to the Democrats.

It is now clear that Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq will be the dominant
issue in the elections. Republican candidates are in a quandary about how to
deal with Iraq, as the bad news keeps coming out of Baghdad: continuing
violence, the rising death toll of American soldiers (103 in October) and
corruption scandals. The Democrats are split on what to do about Iraq, but
united in condemning Bush/s war policies. Iraq will remain a tormenting
problem, no matter who wins the election.

The AFL-CIO has been basing its election campaign exclusively on domestic
issues, but these have been submerged by the nasty negative ads that have
increased in number in the final weeks of the campaign. Democratic
candidates have feasted on the corruption and sex scandals involving
Republicans, but have found no time to discuss such issues as child care,
women's rights, tuition costs or the plight of the homeless.

Hardly any candidate has had anything to say or propose on labor's five
priority issues: health care, retirement income, the minimum wage,
outsourcing of U.S. jobs, and the right of workers to join a union.

When a few did discuss health care, pensions, or the minimum wage, the best
they could do was to define the problem, not propose a solution. And they
had nothing to say about what to do about outsourcing, nor did they publicly
pledge to promote worker rights, Instead, they debated stem cell research
and same sex marriage, issues on which Bush's conservative base have strong
views.

As in the 2004 presidential elections, the role of organized labor was
pushed into the background. Democratic candidates did not want to be closely
associated with union leaders lest they be seen as"captives" of labor.


Why Didn't Labor Publicize It's Message Nationwide?



Since the mainstream media was largely ignoring unions in their reporting of
the election contests, why didn't the AFL-CIO conduct a publicity campaign
of its own, with full-page ads in the nation's most influential dailies and
the purchase of air time on radio and television? What better time to reach
out to the American people with labor's legislative agenda than during this
election period!

With $40 million allocated by the AFL-CIO for the 2006 elections and
millions more from affiliated unions, surely there were enough funds to send
out well-crafted advertising messages about unions to the nation's
unorganized workers. Why wasn't it done?

For years, labor leaders were content with supplying loads of money and
thousands of volunteers to Democratic candidates, demanding nothing in
return, even when they won.


It's time to change that policy. Organized labor, despite its dwindling
membership, is a major vote-getting political force, and it should not be
reticent about demanding a price for its support.



Our two weekly columns (LaborTalk and the World of Labor) can be viewed on
our Web site: <http://www.laboreducator.org/>www.laboreducator.org