One of the biggest reasons I’m supporting Marty Walsh for mayor is his ability to unite the left like no other candidate can–and to broaden its appeal under the banners of innovative administration and practical, universal needs like jobs, housing, and forward-thinking economic development.
A lifelong union man, Walsh is far and away the number one candidate for organized labor. But he was also among the pioneers who led Boston’s older white communities into new territory in social justice. Commonwealth Mag’s Michael Jonas showed yesterday how this is playing out on the campaign trail, in a Walsh visit to Jamaica Plain that highlighted progressive rep Liz Malia’s endorsement as well as Walsh’s work bringing women and minorities into the building trades.
For me, Walsh’s career represents the holy grail of American politics: a pragmatic, popular left that can preserve and expand labor’s tradition of powerful organization to encompass the breadth of social issues and to bring the middle class into the fight for economic justice.
The time may be right for this movement, and Boston may be well positioned to lead the way. As Jonas writes, “one of the biggest changes in the city’s political dynamic is the degree to which the center of gravity has shifted to the left.” For some, this shift is the product of a combination of separate interests, with young people more socially liberal, nonwhite residents asserting more citywide leadership, and union workers defending their rights against attack. For starters, these groups overlap to larger degrees than are often recognized. More than that, though, what’s needed is less a coalition than a politics that asserts common interests without apology and knows how to organize and wield power to fulfill them. I don’t think you get there without labor roots, courageous leadership, and broad diversity. Walsh’s campaign is the only one with all three.
Marty is the real deal, and any undecided voter registered in Boston who wants to talk to me about him should contact me. I am happy to talk. I have other friends in this race. There are a lot of good people in this race. But Marty is the one who can get things done. He is alone among this field in his ability to bring different interests to the table and have them walk out committed to working together. I’ve seen it. Happy to talk about it.
BMG’s influence of course, because of prescient and informed commentary by folks like cannoneo and jlinehan among all the others, natch đŸ˜›
While I appreciate the benefit that unions can bring for workers, I don’t want the Mayor giving the various city employee unions whatever they want. Can you speak to that a little bit?
I would expect a Mayor Walsh to approach the city’s budget responsibly while getting beyond the adversarial stance you invoke. I.e., I don’t see him approaching contracts with the assumption that unions are doing anything other than trying to secure fair pay, job conditions, and health and retirement security for their members. I also see union leadership having great trust in what he says the city can and can’t afford. As a state rep he has been among those who brokered compromise on helping towns deal with benefits burdens.
Exactly what cannoneo said. I would add that he also voted as a legislator for Ed Reform, an unpopular vote with some unions. I think there is no argument that he is uniquely positioned to see that government, labor and business work together.
He has also been instrumental in developing partnerships between the trades and non-profits, having them do pro-bono work in schools and other institutions as part of their community service.
I’m sorry, but is there a candidate out there, or a past mayor, who has “given the various city employee unions whatever they want”?
Will Walsh stand up to working men and women? Will he and other candidates make sure that working for Boston is seen as a desperation choice going forward?
I long for the day when people want a mayor that stands up to banks as much as they look for one who “stands up to unions”.
I am not trying to bash unions or Walsh. I just am trying to make up mind who to support.
I think that Menino did a reasonable job negotiating with the municipal unions, but I do know that there have been some abuses in those unions which makes me sensitive to all this pro-union rhetoric. For instance, the gross abuse of seniority rules in the Fire Department where people would regularly arrange to retire while holding a temporary position at a higher pay grade in order to get a higher pension.
Now I have no reason to believe that Walsh won’t be able to do this, but I would like to hear someone say so. After all, the role of Mayor is very different to that of Legislator. It really isn’t the Mayor’s role or responsibility to carry the torch for unions.
Those retirement abuses resulted in state legislative reform that passed unanimously, so Walsh has never tolerated any sort of corruption. But in regular contract negotiations, I see the welfare of the city’s workforce as a central interest of all its residents. As a tax-paying property owner and parent (and not a city employee), I want the mayor to treat city employees as major partners in running the city (not to mention in stabilizing its neighborhoods), not as adversaries.
To answer the question about Marty Walsh’s ability to deal with the city’s unions and taxpayers fairly, I look at his record as a State Representative. Rep. Walsh has been re-elected 8 or 9 terms now by servicing his district and supporting the interests of worker jointly (and IMHO they are mostly the same issues). As pointed out, Rep. Walsh has significant differences with some unions on policy issues (charter school caps being the most visible at the moment).
As a Union supporting Marty, I expect an open door and a fair hearing when issues arise in the city – nothing more. And I would ask the question will those candidates supporting by the financial, banking and the Chamber of Commerce “stand up” to the big business interests when the time comes?
Different beasts entirely. Besides cops, firefighters, and teachers are always asking the other unions (trades) for support for their shot but when it comes to giving help to trade unions, baaahaaa
public sector unions (federal, state and municipal) are trade unions just as much as any private sector union (be they construction, manufacturing, service, health care).
And my private sector union has seen direct support from public sector unions for decades. From the then Mass Federation of Teachers (Now AFT Mass) actively working against Question #2 as far back as 1988 to Fire Fighters walking our picket lines when community standards are violated by a contractor to police officers making sure our legal rights to demonstrate were protected against corporate pressure at places like the Marriott Copley, the members and leaders of public sector unions are full participants in the Labor Movement.
actually In was referring to to police, fire, and to a lesser degree teachers. The core of municipal unions.
But cops and firemen do’t do shit for anyone and if you don’t kiss their asses they have little tizzy fits.
Case in point, a few years ago the Boston Police Patrolman’s Union had the usual beef going on with the city. The cops weren’t with the trade unions because they weren’t doing what the cops wanted.
One night after a labor event at the IBEW 103 scores of electricians come out to find tickets on their windshields courtesy of the B.P.D.
First time in decades, not including snow emergencies and street cleanings, that tickets were written up for parking there.
What happens when the cops don’t fall in line with the trades? The can’t get a plumber?
A firefighters are just plain ole bullies.
I don’t doubt there are the run-ins between public and private sector unions (for that matter – good god almighty have you ever watched two private sector construction trades fight over jurisdiction? Ugly). That stuff happens. But it doesn’t define the police, fire or teachers unions any more than it defines the private sector ones
As for the drumbeat of “bullies” (personally if you’re gonna tag me I prefer “union thug”) a union’s first responsibility is as an advocate for their members. You do it at the bargaining table and you do it on the street. Management has the financial resources (public sector management has the taxpayers’ pockets) to push their point. Workers pay to have a collective advocate and shame on any union that isn’t fighting to get the fairest deal possible, maintain the current jobs of members, create more jobs if possible and take legal action when a contract or members’ rights are violated. That doesn’t mean no compromise – it means no rolling over just because a kid manager with MPA wants to showoff for the local selectmen at contract time.
If doing your job for the people who pay you is being a thug count me in.
I called police and fire unions bullies when it comes to the trade unions.
How do you know I’m not a union member striker?
Seems like you are too sensitive and looking for someone to insult the unions.
I didn’t do that. I defended the trade unions and said the police and fire unions don’t help other unions and have a disproportionate power.
Hence they ticketed all the IBEW members one night on Freeport St to intimidate the electricians.
Your defending that Strijer? This ain’t no batter between the carpenters and the plumbers.
Whose side are you own Striker? The working person or the powerful government employees who abuse their positions to make trade unions help them get whatever they want regardless if they deserve it.
I can’t berlieve you see no difference between these two types of groups.
I thought you were for the little guy striker?
Union thug? No that’s not what I said. Asshole cops and firefighters is what I said.
You disagree Striker?
Did a trade union guy ver spit on the mayor’s wife?
We can disagree without getting our backs up. First off, not saying the ticketing situation was fine. Just saying I’ve seen enough of intra-union pissing matches to know it happens and no one is on the side of the angels. And I’ve been at the fist fights over work in the construction trades and a couple in the retail sector. Doesn’t make it right but it happens.
We disagree on public sector unions. To me they are legit, hard working organizations that represent their members. Not sure how going years without a contract qualifies one as a “powerful government employees who abuse their positions”. They are workers fighting for enough to have a quality of life. Are there abuses? Of course. There are abuses in every system – bankers, politicians, corporations, T management, non-profits. Anywhere money is involved you can find an abuse. I just don’t paint them with the broad brush when the bad apples get caught.
No one has shown me a better advocate than a union for working men and women. And I have no idea if you are a union member or not – we come in all political flavors and I know I am better off as a union member. And I used the word “thug” not you and didn’t put it in your mouth in my post. Chill a bit there Brother.
AND NO ONE every gave a pass the asshole who spit at Mrs. Menino. But then I do remember a bunch of trade union guys rocking Ray Flynn’s car the night he endorsed Paul Cellucci for Governor.
30 years in the trenches qualifies me as being for the little guy and that includes the little guys who do the dirty jobs like police, fire, corrections, custodians. If you value the work EB3 than value the workers.
I’m not giving you an inch on this. Cops only care about cops. They are not team players. They will give the lip service but if it’s not for them than don’t count on a thing.
Cop unions are act more like the NBA, MBA, NFL, and NHL unions when it comes to looking down on the trade unions.
Can plumbers and govt office workers pull over elected officials? Remember when the Everett cops were pulling over local pols when an issue involving money ion their pocket was before the legislator?
They’re not our friends striker, they use labor unions and give nothing back.
Strangely I didn’t expect to convince you. We’ve had different experiences with police unions (and fire fighters and teachers). Both on a professional and personal level my experiences with police union officials and with officers when they know I’m a union member have been good. Not perfect but good.
Unions have too many enemies for me to be looking to fight with my brothers and sisters in the public sector.
very good, very good
Former Reagan advisor and W.-era GOP defector Bruce Bartlett has a piece up arguing that liberalism is poised for a new ascendancy. The population is focused on left-ward solutions but is awaiting leaders who can articulate them in positive, popular language, like Reagan did for the anger at government that had been building through the ’70s.
Agreed.
Elizabeth Warren comes to mind.
the argument against Walsh going forward. I started hearing media members recite these same talking points privately months ago. It’s really too bad if people rule out considering him because of this because he’s a great guy. I think one could actually make the argument that he’s uniquely positioned to deal with the city’s unions. He will know when they’re trying to pull one over on him, he won’t antagonize labor for political points, and whenever he does clash with he unions, the public will know he’s right and the unions are wrong if he’s so adamant in his position.