Later this afternoon Massachusetts AFL-CIO President Steve Tolman will kickoff Labor’s 2013 US Senate Campaign. The downtown Boston event will bring local union activists and leaders together with Congressman Markey . . . and Congressman Stephen Lynch. Since last Tuesday’s election Congressman Lynch has been a class act making sure his supporters know he is supporting Ed Markey on June 25th.
In case you missed Dan Winslow’s very pointed Primary night remarks – Dan attempted to reachout to Lynch supporters and sway them to Gomez. Winslow said the Democratic Party leaders in Washington DC “sole” this election from Steve Lynch and encouraged Lynch supporters to jump on the Gomez bandwagon.
To Steve Lynch’s credit he stood with Ed Markey the morning of the Unity event and will stand with Markey again today to encourage the core of Lynch’s support – Organized Labor – to vote for Ed Markey on June 25th.
That fishy bunch sure is made up of a group of heels.
Missing tea has made sabutai sarcastic.
They’re totally being taken for granted. They’re credited with helping beat Scott Brown and then got pushed around in the Markey/Lynch race. I’ll be interested to see what they do in the Mayor’s race with Arroyo and Walsh likely being competitive and candidates like Connolly going after the teachers.
He’s all charter, all the time. He’s basically the worst possible candidate you could offer to them short of one of the looney “close the Department of Education” GOPers you find in the Deep South.
Maybe that wasn’t clear. Connolly will be attacking the teachers, not looking for an endorsement.
Even IBEW 103 has reservations about Markey and will sit down with Gabriel Gomez. Fact is, AFL-CIO may have a non-endorsement b/c Markey doesn’t have enuff support.
“They have reached out, and we’ll probably talk to them,” said Plumbers’ Local 12 business manager Kevin Cotter about Gomez’s campaign. Mike Monahan, business manager of IBEW 103, told the Herald earlier that he wants to meet with Gomez as well.
Cotter cited the national Democratic Party’s treatment of U.S. Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, who lost in the Senate primary to Markey, as a reason why he is slow to back the longtime Democratic congressman.
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/05/gabriel_gomez_sees_chance_with_unions
.
from Greece (about 20 years ago), I was in the valleys by Taygetos mountains it was just growing wild, every local picked them wild. But alas, customs tossed it in the trash when I came back home. I shouldn’t have put it in my carry-on.
Wait, what was this discussion about again?
apparently the venture capitalist turned his nose up to union workers
A/K/A Keystone Pipeline. Of course, Markey opposes, which won’t sit well with people itching to get back to work.
he didn’t give a crap enough about unions to spare a few minutes to let union workers know where he stood on issues important to them, huh?
…will Keystone create in MA? Even most of the ones it will create will be temporary and not worth the environmental risk.
The best candidate, you see, is the one who creates jobs the farthest from Massachusetts and with the most downside. Gomez, with his track record in China and Bangladesh, fits the bill.
Cornell GLI Study Finds Keystone XL Pipeline Will Create Few Jobs
Full report PDF here.
“Job losses would be caused by additional fuel costs in the Midwest, pipeline spills, pollution and the rising costs of climate change. Even one year of fuel price increases as a result of Keystone XL could cancel out some or all of the jobs created by the project.”
That is an amazing quote. “Additional fuel costs” will destroy jobs, yet Deval and DeLeo and Murray want to “raise” fuel prices in MA. So it is logical they will destroy jobs, no?
Cost of climate change? Really? I hope to write a post about how Russian scientists are predicting 200-250 years of cooler temperatures due to the sun becoming less active. Article came out last week or so, it’s irrefutable.
Who are you to look down on any job, paying a good wage, b/c it won’t last forever? Welcome to the real world.
Anyone in MA who drives a car will benefit from this pipeline. Of course, Deval and Co. want to jack up the gas tax more and more.
The tar sand crude will be refined in TX and/or LA, and then be put on tankers and shipped out. It will have no measurable impact on the price of gasoline, diesel motor fuel, or home heating oil fuel within the USA.
P.S. Anyone in MA who drives a car does benefit from smooth roads, structurally sound bridges, functioning traffic signals, and the rest. Those things don’t grow on trees — we gotta buy ’em, and employ Massachusetts citizens to construct and install them.
Oil!!! Don’t be so myopic. Just b/c MA residents won’t be employed, tens of thousands of AMERICANS will be. You think if we want funding for our universities, the Senators in those states reaping the Keystone benefit will look fondly at our delegation that thwarted jobs in their states? Old saying, payback is an itch, be prepared to scratch like a dog with flies.
Its people. Dammit! Its people.
you’re the one interested in temporary jobs. Just who is being myopic here I wonder. Hint: you.
…
First of all, it isn’t America’s project. It’s a corporation’s project, not a public works project. We’re not talking about the Grand Cooley Dam or Eisenhower’s highways or a national park.
Second of all, largest by what measure? Length? It’s an expensive project to be sure, but in the context of the vast amounts of large infrastructure projects across the country it’s barely a blip.
Thirdly, is there any evidence that the project will be built with union labor? To what extent?
Finally, how many jobs are going to Massachusetts citizens? I can’t imagine that it will be very many.
That’s nothing to sneeze at. Estimated over 100,000 jobs will be created directly and indirectly. Plants from Arkansas will supply the steel pipes, truck drivers (Hi Teamsters) and thousands of hard hats. Over 1100 miles of pipe, that is huge. And tax receipts for state and local municipalities to build new schools, roads, public housing, etc.
I am sure when the bids go out, just like for Gillette Stadium, the unions will make a bid, likely negotiate their wages, and get a piece of the action. Trans-Canada wants skilled workers, so likely the unions will be first choice, no doubt about it.
Construction of Keystone will generate $20 billion in economic impact in the USA, and add almost $200 billion to the US GDP by 2035. I would like to knock on Markey’s head for opposing this project and say “Hello…McFly….anyone home????,
The $5.3B is about right… but the rest of them are highly questionable.
First of all, the appropriate measurement is job-years, not jobs. Since very few of the jobs are permanent, the number of jobs is a useless measurement. You’ve got to couple the jobs with the length of each job to understand the employment impact.
Secondly, that includes both direct, indirect, and induced jobs — and while I have no idea which model they used (IMPLAN? Something else?), without really diving into the specifics of their analysis, including input vectors, it’s impossible for me to have a feel for the number of *job-years* which will be created. Same goes for “economic impact.”
Thirdly, not all jobs are equal. Crap jobs are far less valuable to the employed and to society. Certainly, Keystone will require skilled labor and unskilled labor, and the breakdown is very important.
Fourthly, 1100 miles of pipe built over a handful of years is significant, but to put it in perspective, America has added more than 1100 miles of gas pipeline each and every year from 1997 (or earlier) until 2011. See EIA Natural Gas Pipeline Projects for details. That’s just natural gas pipelines — there are fewer crude pipelines, but as an example the White Cliffs Pipeline expansion was completed 3Q2011, and that bad boy was 527 miles. Not as long as Keystone and not as big a diameter, but still significant. Never heard of it I’m sure. The point is: in the context of the total pipeline construction within tUSA, Keystone won’t have a substantial impact on the total pipeline construction industry’s employment, tax base, etc.
Keystone will have no impact on the price of gasoline, and won’t have any impact on unemployment numbers either. Furthermore, because the project is so long, it won’t have a tremendous impact in any one economy. We do know that Keystone is critical to tar sand extraction, and we know that tar sand extraction is entirely inappropriate when one weighs the environmental and the public health costs.
Why would you fill out a questionnaire and try to curry favor with a group that will merely use anything you say or write to benefit your opponent – including withholding anything favorable?
The AFL is in total thrall to the Democrats. Why waste your time with a partisan group?
I once wasted my day interviewing with the teacher’s union. They later said they would endorse the Democrat. I told them I expected them to, but would they at least endorse for the Republican primary? They said that would merely ‘dilute’ their support for the Democrat.
Actually my Union has a record of endorsing and working with Republican candidates who support core issues for workers. Regionally, I have been working with Republicans in the New Hampshire and Maine State Houses and State Senates who oppose and have voted against anti-collective bargaining bills, right-to-work-for-less bills and other ALEC legislation. It was the Republican votes in the House that made the difference in upholding Governor Lynch’s veto of RTW in 2012.
Nationally my Union workes with a supports a number of Republican Congress and Senate members who support Davis-Bacon protections and other worker rights legislation.
Do Democrats draw the majority of our endorsements – yes they do because they are more likely to support the issues we care about. Personally I wish more Republicans would breakout of the ALEC/Koch/Tea Party grasp and recognize common ground with workers. I think they would be pleasantly surprised at the relationships they could build
your sole reason for supporting a candidate evolves around their support for your unions self-interest, and that’s it. We have no idea how you feel on any other issues, just this one topic. Besides, I read no compromise in your union beliefs regarding collective bargaining or prevailing wage, or union benefits. If a candidate does not genuflect and cow-tow to what the unions want, then said candidate (usually a Republican) better duck from union paid TV ads.
If a candidate doesn’t genuflect and cow-tow (sic) to what stomv wants, then said candidate (usually a Republican) better duck from stomv paid TV ads.
stomv can’t buy as many ads (he’s only one dude), but there are lots of stomvs out there.
they vote on. Sure, some more important than others, have different weight of importance. But, do you vote for the collective good or your own self-interest. I subscribe to the egalitarian type of thinking, collective good if you will, not solely “me..me..me”. Not saying anyone here does, but just saying.
I always thought of you as a one trick pony.
That I have the most diverse voting record on this board, both Dems and Republicans and Independents. And I don’t vote solely on my own self interests or follow orders from my union boss, I typically, after thoughtful research and consideration, vote for the most qualified or candidate with the better vision. And character is important too.
Why if I lived in S.C., I could not vote for Sanford over Colbert-Busch. Even though I understand why Sanford did what he did. Sure, I see why he did what he did, I get it, I’m a guy too. But to go missing for a week or two, sorry, unforgivable. Yet, he won.
is from the extreme right, there is absolutely nothing that you have documented that has shown that you vote for the most qualified. Better vision, well that’s a judgement , and within your narrow scope it doesn’t really mean much in a way of an argument.
To be honest, I really don’t give much credence about whom people voted for in the 70s and 80s. Warren voted for Reagan. Doesn’t really say much about who she is today. That argument is baloney, it’s who you are right now, and that is borderline fringe right.
One trick pony.
Would you kindly point to my fringe right comments/beliefs.
you frame your arguments.
Since when does the word “Both” apply to a list of three items? Snark!
1) You should learn to write in the King’s English!
or
2) You should learn to write using the King’s English!
(2) looks more grammatically correct to my eye, but I am not sure. Is not “King’s English” the object of a preposition?
but they still have a variety of issues within. The concept is the exact same.
Furthermore, I’d add that many things that unions fight for have direct, specific benefit for non-union workers, in direct contradiction to the implications of your most recent two posts on this sub-thread.
My professional and personal political beliefs are deeply embedded in economic justice and my belief in the rights and strength of the collective actions of workers. My social political beliefs are progressive, pro-choice, pro- marriage equality, pro-GBLT rights, taxing the 1%, and background checks are a beginning but not enough. I’ve posted or commented on all these and more – so Dan if you had really been interested you could have easily found that out about me.
So Union self-interests – hmmmm. Guess I am enough of a believer that I recognize the economic issues unions support as being broad-based as opposed to “self interests”. I’m a strong advocate for raising the minimum wage yet not one member of my union would benefit directly from that increased (and sure a family member might). I beleieve the OSHA should be fully funded and safety laws enforced – that means all workers. In fact union contracts have some safety measures already in place so this certainly goes beyond self-interest. Yes I support Davis-Bacon and state Prevailing Wage laws – and those laws cover union and non-union workers alike on federal and state funded construction projects. (Just an aside Dan but did you know that Davis and Bacon were Republicans who wrote and passed a law to protect community standard wages on federal construction projects way back in 1913 – my how far the Republican Party has fallen). BTW prevailing wage sets a wage rate by job classification ensuring that a female painter receives equal pay to a male painter – there is no 70 cents on the dollar under PW. And yes I know it is difficult for women to break into the trades but when they do there is pay equity in theory.
And yes you read no compromise in my support for the right to bargain collectively. It is the only tool workers have in response to private sector corporate economic control or public sector kneejerk talk radio driven attacks.
As for elected officials cow-towing to unions – oh god were it only true. I can count the number of 100% Labor records on the state or federal level on one hand. I look for and support candidates who stand with my core economic beliefs with the understanding that there are no perfect candidates.
And I ocassionally struggle with my social beliefs and my professional politics. I have my successes medling the two – my Union supported equal marriage and publically opposed a ballot question on equal marriage. My union supports a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and support in-state tuition for the children of immigrants.
And I don’t know any Union Bosses. I know Union leaders elected by secret ballot of the dues-paying membership. I’m still waiting for the right as a consumer paying for products to vote on any companies next CEO. Until then I will keep the term boss confined to the business side of the ledger.
Nor do I believe that Union members vote in lock step or in fear with/of union leaders. I work hard to educate my members on the economic reason for an endorsement of a candidate but don’t operate under the illusion that my Union controls their vote – I need to work for their support as does any candidate. Exit polling shows that Union members vote between 63 to 70% with their Union’s endorsement. And what that endorsement brings to a candidate is voluntyeers and the Union’s direct contact with the members and families.
So Dan, like Steve Lynch, I am supporting Ed Markey. Congressman Markey and I disagree on issues (Keystone being one – I support Keystone. Congressman Markey’s Telecom legislation has hurt workers in the industry and I disagree with him on that). However, Congressman Markey brings the core values I hold to the table and that means he’s head and shoulders above Gomez.
So progressive politics with core economic justice guiding my vote. My Union membership and belief in unions always carries any close decision.
Many other states have GOP majorities, so they HAVE to deal with them.
In MASSACHUSETTS where THIS union and questionnaire are, the unions are partisan organizations. After my own experience and observing that of others (like a popular Rep who had his endorsement rescinded – he was so well liked and was so compatible on the issues that the union assumed he was a Democrat when endorsing, and took it back when they found out he wasn’t) I gave up suggesting that GOP’s interact in any way with unions in Massachusetts. You might be surprised at how those who did try to build relationships were treated.
and I wonder if the general challenge that the GOP has in the Northeast (and the Democratic party has in other parts of the country) is simply that the brand is the same nationally as locally, even if the platforms and personalities differ. Tough to shake that.
.
because the AFL-CIO endorsed Markey with well over the 2/3rds needed. Well over.
Totally unfair to DFW, let him live in his fantasy world where Ronald Reagan saved American jobs and unions love Republicans and vice a versa.
No bailout, just temporary tariffs to give them breathing room. All Reagan my friend, I guess your teachers failed you when discussing the 1980’s.
n/t don’t be rude.
Nobody listens to Dan Winslow, or even heard what he said. If a last-in-the-primary State Rep. falls in the woods and nobody’s there to hear it, does he make a sound?
one step forward, three step back for Winslow. He didn’t think anyone was running so he figured he could get his name out and run for higher office. He instead made himself a punchline.
Gee sorry I flubbed the t in stole. Was excited by the content of the post and missed a key. But hey if it makes ya feel superior have at with the snark Sab.
And yes the MA AFL-CIO endorsed Congressman Markey with 2/3s and my building trades union will be working hard for Markey. With important issues like Davis-Bacon, OSHA funding and now the GOP plan to steal overtime pay away from workers we don’t need Scott Brown lite in the US Senate voting with McConnell and Ted Cruz.
With all respect to the Leaders quoted in the Herald article, and that respect is sincere, if you are mad at the DNC or the DSCC take it out on them. Give Markey credit for lining up his ducks early and winning the race. Kick the DNC / DSCC in the ass by withholding financial support and go win the damn June 25th election with a guy that has a 95% Labor voting record.
n/t
I didn’t read it as snark, just good-natured humor.
I join you in distrusting the various national organizations, and I have intentionally withheld financial support from them for years — the DNC/DSCC has supported far too many “blue dogs” for my taste.
Is whether or not labor really comes out for Markey. The endorsement was a sure thing, but will they have their members out on Election Day?
Ed Markey has long and distinguished record of doing the right thing for working men and women. He has long been a friend of “labor”. Mr. Gomez is already showing himself to be a true Republican — with all that portends for men and women who must work for living. Ask working men and women who have first-hand experience with “private equity” investors like Mr. Gomez (and Mr. Romney) whether the agenda of Mr. Gomez is likely to help or hurt them.
Any voter who views themselves as part of “labor” is self-destructive to the point of suicidal to stay home on election day.