Tweet
According to Matt McKinnon, the Legislative and Political Director for the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, members of Congress who vote in favor of the NAFTA-style “free” trade agreements this week could draw union-backed primary challenges in 2012. We interviewed McKinnon earlier — starting about 9 minutes in — while covering the Occupy D.C. events.
While President Obama has spent weeks crisscrossing the country publicly promoting his American Jobs Act, ironically in Washington his administration has been focused on lobbying Congress to approve a package of job-killing free trade deals. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the NAFTA-style South Korea Free Trade deal could cost America roughly 159,000 jobs while Colombia would export another 54,000.
After Obama announced that he would be sending the trade deals to Congress and abandoning his promise to insist on passage of assistance to displaced workers before doing so, I spoke with McKinnon at the Freedom Plaza event in support of #OccupyWallStreet.
I asked if the Machinists considered these bills a line in the sand with members of Congress. McKinnon responded, “I will not tell you it is a cross the board thing but what I will tell you is that we will pick and choose and there will be some primary challenges.”
He also had choice words for a Democratic Party that saw its future in embracing such deals: “If they offshore our work to South Korea it will never come back, and I don’t know how they win elections in the Midwest.”
With over half a million members spread throughout the country, the IAMAW has the potential to be a real force in many Congressional districts if they do get involved in primaries. The 2012 election should be a relatively very favorable cycle to launch primary challenges against incumbent House members. The current Congressional job approval rating is historically low, so there is little love for incumbents right now.
More importantly, redistricting is taking place this cycle. This means in some of the redrawn districts a significant number of voters will not have been previously represented by the current incumbent. A sitting House member may not have the same built-in name recognition and loyalty with voters that are added to a newly redrawn district.
McKinnon would not say which districts they would be looking at, but he noted that states like Washington and Pennsylvania were places where the union had tremendous organizing capacity, but many members of Congress had bad voting histories on trade and other labor issues.
26 Comments
Classic Obama: pat us condescendingly on the head with one hand, while readying a knife in the other to stab us in the back.
I find it interesting, Jon,that you mention Obama in two separate paragraphs, yet McKinnon does NOT mention Obama directly, even once. He mentions Congressional Democrats and the Democratic Party.
Why do you suppose that Obama is not mentioned directly and why is there no apparent union resistance to Obama’s intended second term? In other words, why is Obama not held to account by union “leadership” when it is undeniably clear, to virtually everyone, that both the “Congressional Democrats” and the “Democratic Party” are doing Obama’s bidding?
DW
The elites got Dems to fall for their sick trick in 2008
Obama and Hillary were both trojan horse, they were also unique trojan horses
the elites knew that the intelligent left, unions, progressives, sane americans, etc. would not attack the 1st black president or 1st female president.
Unions, Progressives, and others fear attacking OBAMA, because if he is attack black voters may become very upset, the same would have happen with Hillary, female voters would have become upset
Obama sold his self to the devil a long time ago.
It is no secret in Dem political circles that UNION members, Progressives, hate OBAMA!
Obama and the National Democratic Party are FRAUDS.
Unions primary Dems?
When pigs fly.
More talk. All hat, no cattle.
So why not primary the head of the party that is proposing NAFTA style trade agreements that will create permanant job losses. Korea and Columbia are devastaing to the middle class union movement which will impoverish labor.
Why not primary Obama the CA PDA is.
Gathering the resources necessary to primary a President is damn near impossible. Plus, you need a candidate. Members of Congress are easier targets. It’s a pragmatic exercise to be sure, but one does what one can.
We all know why,well look the Union leadership has been playing this game
for a long time.
Like you said,it’s funny how they are going to supposedly go after congressional Dems but the guy who is proposing the policy is not in their sight.
The Union leadership is just as corrupt as the DNC leadership….Just think if the unions were ready to fund members who would run against corporatist DNC candidates yrs ago….just maybe the country would not be in such a sorry state.
Afternoon All,
the cynicism is totally understandable — but I would suggest folks take a cursory peek at the Machinists Union’s record — they have never gone along to get along, whether it was Reagan or Obama – eg, this was the first Labor org to call out the DNC for holding it’s 2012 Convention in a union-hostile, right to work state and has publicly stated they will boycott Charlotte
there could be all kinds of reasons to threaten Congressional and not Presidential primaries – let’s start with ‘divide and conquer’ for one – pressure points are weaker, etc.
“Mr. McKinnon, Ralph Nader’s asking for you on line 2, something about primarying President Obama. Do want to take it?”
it’s not just him, it seems that all the way down to your local agency can only see the money.
For anyone that was wondering; single payer (SB-810) here in CA got shot down in the state assembly. It has little chance of ever seeing daylight again.
Yeah I agree, I think the objection being raised is to the choice of pull quotes — the interview in the video above is on and off for about an hour, and a lot of things get covered. If after listening to the entire thing people have objections that’s fine, but it’s unfair to extrapolate things based on what isn’t said based on two sentences that were pulled from a much longer conversation.
I was a shop steward, lodge vp, legislative co-chair and grievance chair for the “Fighting” (hah!) Machinists. The rank and file are great people and it was a privilege to serve them.
The leadership has sold out to the powers-that-be and I have seen nothing that indicates change. You will note that Matt did not criticize Democrats by name, when there is ample opportunity and reason to do so.
Moreover, the IAMAW has created election rules that virtually guarantee incumbent re-election that would make the old Politburo green with envy. It is next to impossible to prise out the leadership and replace them with someone that actually represents the members.
Color me unimpressed. Matt’s just Bogarting a little street cred.
I quite agree, and I confess to not having had time to listen to the interview, however, HAD McKinnon mentioned a genuine consequence FOR Obama, then I suspect that Jon would have included such a statement.
I have not yet listened to the entire interview, but I ask you directly, did McKinnon mention a consequence for Obama, by name? Had he done so I imagine that you, Jane, would have said as much.
Did McKInnon say anything directly about Obama and a meanigdful consequence for Obama’s abominable behaviors regarding the 99% these past two years?
If the answer is “No”, then I remain curious as to WHY it was not “YES!”?
Let us move past conventional “wisdom” and take it to those who are essentially responsible … in this case, Barack Obama and those whose interests he is so diligently serving, for no genuine, honest, human “pragmatism” is served by evading this central issue; that a “political expediency” is served, however, I have not the slightest doubt. That is my opinion. It is not pulled out of thin air. If Jon’s post does not cover the import of what significant things were said, in the context of their importance, then, perhaps, more in-depth reporting is necessary?
If union “leadership” does not wish to hold Obama to account, then I suggest that the “reasons” for that being the case ARE very important, indeed, and the actual “stuff” of useful AND insightful news.
DW
He didn’t mention international currency or global warming either, but then we didn’t ask him about them. We asked him about the vote in Congress this Wednesday on the FTAs.
I think it would be unfair to deduce he supports Chinese currency manipulation because of that.
Sounds like same old shit different day. Working outside the system. growing your own food, trading, no brands, boycotts will help the lesser people survive a system that is stacked against them. Like a poker game where most of the players are their to skin the outsiders.
Jane, that is not the same thing, and you know it. Asking about political accountability which stops short of the person who has pressured the Democrats to vote for NAFTA-style trade agreenments WITHOUT asking about the union’s attitude toward that person seems to have been deliberately calculated to NOT upset anyone. Perhaps it is NOT McKinnon who should be asked why this question was not asked?
Let me ask you, then, why did you NOT ask about accountability for Obama, since the FTAs are HIS idea, he is the one “selling” such ideas to Congress, is he not?
Frankly, your response to my comment is not what I consider to be worthy of you, it is simply an attempt to deflect attention from the question that SHOULD have been asked along with the others that were asked.
So, I repeat, why did you not ask that question, or have Jon ask it?
DW
Why is it Jane’s job to ask your questions? I have never known Jane to back away from asking a tough question. How often does she need to expose the conflicts and hypocrisies of the governement and unions, before it satisfies you? Congress is voting on the trade bills this week, not Obama.
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union has been a thoroughly reactionary led union except for a decade or so when socialist William Winpinsinger was at the helm. Much of its membership was derived from raiding the left led unions like the United Electrical workers union in the 1950′s. For some reason, long forgotten is its role in fomenting anti-communism in the U.S. labor movement and how it herlped Joer McCarthy and the FBI destroy a vibrant, class struggle UE representing Whirlpool workers. In contrast to Winpisinger’s strong stands for peace, disarmament, social justice and his determined successful struggle to create a committee in the AFL-CIO to explore converting the U.S. economy from a war economy to a peace economy, the IAM’s leadership since has been thoroughly reactionary with its present leadership pathetically latching on in supporting any piece of legislation coming down the pike bolstering war and militarism as a way to keep its members employed. McKinnon should have been asked why he and his union leadership have not pushed the AFL-CIO to re-establish the AFL-CIO’s Committee on Conversion as the way to create full employment in this country in line with the book “Let’s Rebuild America” and Winpisinger’s proposed “Rebuilding America Act” which would still be a real progressive alternative to Obama’s proposed and thoroughly reactionary Jobs Act.
See: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1352&context=articles&sei-redir=1#search=%22afl-cio%20conversion%20committee%20winpisinger%22
And: http://thepodunkblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/fake-political-crisis-and-real-economic.html
in fact, the AFL-CIO and the IAMAW are “involved” in Occupy Wall Street as a way to make themselves appear to be militant when they refuse to take militant action to save the jobs of their own members.
How about asking McKinnon why the IAMAW doesn’t start occupying the factories Whirlpool is closing down here in this country as it ships the jobs of its own members to low wage/cheap resource areas of the world?
Parks and public squares are not the only places where occupations should be considered— 58,000 mines, mills and factories in this country have closed and thousands of workers locked out of their jobs as employers (Wall Street) attempt to evade collective bargaining and only one plant in this country has been occupied— a window manufacturing plant in Chicago represented by the UE.
Who, hopeful, put this issue before Congress?
Barack Obama did.
And frankly, it is not just or merely MY question.
Where the unions (and their “leadership”) stand or do not stand is, or should be, of interest to everyone …
To put this into a timely context, many unions have expressed “support” for OWS, (Occupy Wall Street) and if the union “leadership” (and FireDogLake for that matter) intend to support Obama, for whatever reasons, regardless of what he does, has done, and shall do, then that should be made plain … Barack Obama IS, for all practical intents and purposes, the author of these trade deals, as they would NEVER have been put to a vote were he not fully in support of them and desirous of having them passed.
Before you get the wrong impression, hopeful, be advised that I have very considerable respect for Jane Hamshire and her courage, I do not, however, feel that ANYONE deserves a pass for trying to shift a reasonable question into realms of absurdity … as it is a form of false argument AND false equivalency, and frankly you are doing the same thing, whether you know it or not, whether you care or not.
If FDL cannot or will not strive, at all times, to maintain best practice, especially endorsing civility and respect, as well as reasonable methods of rational debate, then it will be a sad loss to everyone. That those who comment here may not always meet such a standard is evident, yet all who comment here should seek to behave in such a manner as to bring respect to themselves and each other.
Further, Jane is quite capable of speaking for herself, and you do not do her, nor anyone else, a favor by presuming to do so for her.. Jane does not need to defend herself from my questions and you do not need to rise, seemingly, to an “aspersion” when none is intended nor, in fact, does any such aspersion, attack, or insult exist.
If we cannot disagree on points, if we cannot share significant questions, while still agreeing on basic human philosophy and purpose, reasonably and with genuine courtesy, and always with the utmost of respect, then we are in for a very rough time …
DW
I was a Teamster back in the day. Also a union meat cutter and union machinist but that was under the I.B.E.W.. This was when Organized Labor was a power and we were welcome in the Party. We supported their agenda and they supported ours.
That all changed when Clinton got a better offer and kicked us to the curb. I quit the party when Clinton sent my job to Mexico. Now I am neither a Democrat nor a union man.
I am aware that the leadership is corrupt. But please tell me what they were supposed to do? Go to their members and say lets start a war with the Democrats? How can Labor be anything but a punching bag in a country with no Labor Party?
It’s the whole fucking working class that needs to step up. We need a Labor Party. Then the Unions will be back in business. What’s left of Organized Labor needs to join the struggle and the members seem to be doing just that.
I may be wrong, but I don’t think FDL has touched the subject of primarying Obama. I don’t believe the Nader suggestion for doing so has been covered, in particular, by Dayen or anybody, any time recently as it has been on other lefty media.
Obama’s off the table at FDL?
Would be great; we’ll see if it happens.
Not a primary challenge. A general strike. That, now, would get Obama’s attention.
I think the mood was to do more than get his attention.