This Can't Be Good For The Democratic Party

I read about this on Monday and spent today thinking about it before deciding to post on it. I don't know why.

The AFL-CIO has split into at least two seperate factions, with the SEIU and the Teamsters taking their 1.8 million workers out of the AFL-CIO umbrella.

"Our goal is not to divide the labor movement but to rebuild it," said Andy Stern, president of the 1.8 million-member Service Employees International Union. He and Teamsters President James P. Hoffa said their unions would leave the AFL-CIO, paving the way for other unions to follow.

Their action drew a bitter rebuke from AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, who called it a "grievous insult" that could hurt workers already buffeted by the global economy and anti-union forces in Congress.

This is a major blow for the Democratic Party, who relies heavily on union support at the polls. Now, I am sure the decision to split was based on many factors, and I can only offer anecdotal evidence regarding the decision.

There have been rumblings over the last year or so that the AFL-CIO had erred in putting most of it's eggs in the Democratic basket. And with the left out of power in this country, it leads to the obvious conclusion that unions do not serve their needs by backing a losing horse.

This story from SignOnSanDiego, which has the number pegged at 3.2 million, would seem to bolster that view.

At the core of the dispute is the rejected demand by the two breakaway unions and several allies that the federation shift resources from political action and devote them instead to organizing nonunion sectors of the economy.

Speaking for 1.4 million Teamsters, Hoffa declared, "We must have more union members in order to change the political climate that is undermining workers' rights in this country. The AFL-CIO has chosen the opposite approach. . . . Their idea is to keep throwing money at politicians."

Regardless if that translates to a more equal spread of funds between both parties or simply less spending altogether, that is disturbing news for the left, which relies heavily on those funds. And, with Howard Dean proving to be a fund-raising disaster, the Democratic Party can ill afford this promised depletion of campaign reserves.

When you look at the speaker line-up at AFL-CIO convention this year, it isn't difficult to see why many union members have become disenchanted with the direction of union political affiliations.

Addressing the convention yesterday were Democratic Sens. Richard Durbin and Barack Obama of Illinois and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. Also speaking were Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and John Edwards, last year's Democratic vice-presidential candidate.

In other words, a traitor, a rookie, a coward, a wallflower, a whiner, and a loser.

On a local level, my union sources express a great deal of dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party, which has embraced it's liberal wing and has little time for labor issues. Furthermore, union members generally support a strong national security policy, and could care less about things like gay marriage. Generally, union members are parents and care a great deal about "moral issues" as well. They are not passionate about making sure porn is available at public libraries etc.

It has often enough heard; "I don't want to trade my paycheck for my country," that it is almost becoming a cliche. This splinter of one of the most powerful groups in the country, I think, reflects that sentiment, whatever the talking heads might tell you.

I could be wrong, but I believe this split in the AFL-CIO marks the end of Democratic dominance of the unions. Only time will tell.