LABOR ORGANIZATION POLITICAL ENDORSEMENTS: MY PERSONAL VIEW

The right of workers, public or private, to organize for their common good is precious and powerful. I am privileged to represent some unions in court and the collective power of unified workers can be astounding. Likewise, union endorsements can also be powerful. In order to have that power, endorsements, in my experience, must appear to be based upon a fair process and must be related to legitimate interests of the labor organization's constituents.

Fairness is usually shown that all candidates have had a fair chance to present credentials and be heard. I remember a State Central Committeeman race some years ago where a union only heard from one of five candidates, endorsed that one and publicized their endorsement. Not only did that approach not help the candidate but the union leadership was also later ousted by members who supported the ultimately winning candidate. Those wounds took a long time to heal. A wise local president will go to great pains to appear fair, even if he or she supports one particular candidate.

The other prong is usually not a problem but comes up sometimes. A coal miners' local in another state once endorsed a legislative candidate based solely upon that candidate's position on abortion. Members and union sympathizers were offended at the local going so far afield from the local's legitimate business interests. This led to an upset of a candidate in a favorable district who really should have won.

Sometimes the collective bargaining process gets all tied up with political support. Public Empoyees' Unions and municipalities should avoid contracts ending in election years at all costs.

When Employer and Union Bargain, they first agree on ground rules. One of them is that what is said in the bargaining room is kept private in the bargaining room. Tempers sometimes flare in bargaining. Sometimes proposals get floated to avoid impasse which, upon examination, are not practical. In order to protect everyone reputation damage and to encourage the free flow of information, the only things that ever leave the bargaining room are the "deal points" mutually agreed upon and the final form of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Thus it is never fair for the Government Employer to say it "Prevented" or "Refused" this or that proposal by the Union and it is never fair for the Union to make public statements about the conduct of the Employer's bargaining team in bargaining sessions. What happens in the bargaining room, unless it's a crime, stays in the bargaining room.

Within in those bounds, in my opinion, it is perfectly appropriate for the Union to support the ouster of an incumbent officeholder they feel is unsympathetic and equally fair for the officeholder to campaign on the basis of keeping union power in check. Both are a little predictiable and, for the average voter, kind of boring, but legitimate.