SEARCH
Sheet Metal Workers Join UTU in Endorsing Clinton
The Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA), set to merge with the United Transportation Union (UTU) next year, announced that it will join the UTU in endorsing Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for president.
SMWIA President Michael J. Sullivan said Clinton’s attention to issues such as health care, education and retirement security led to the union’s endorsement.
Sen. Hillary Clinton knows that all working Americans and their families want new leadership and new thinking on both the domestic and international fronts. She will bring to this high office the intelligence and common sense necessary to guide our nation to its destiny as a strong and compassionate society. Hillary Clinton understands our issues. She knows the importance of sound policies and programs and will deal fairly and intelligently in addressing the energy crisis, fair trade, affordable health care, funding college and technical education and training, and will protect retirement security.
The two unions will officially merge Jan. 1, 2008, when they will be known as the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, or SMART. The new merged union will have about 230,000 members.
In addition to the UTU, Clinton has won the endorsement of AFSCME, the AFT, the Bricklayers (BAC), the Letter Carriers (NALC), Machinists (IAM) and TCU/IAM. (IAM’s endorsement of Clinton in the Democratic primaries was accompanied by an endorsement of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in the Republican primaries.)
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has won the support of three unions in the Democratic primaries: the Mine Workers (UMWA), United Steelworkers (USW) and Transport Workers (TWU). The Fire Fighters (IAFF) union has endorsed Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.).
In August, the AFL-CIO Executive Council said it would not yet make an endorsement for a 2008 candidate, freeing AFL-CIO unions to endorse candidates for the caucuses and primaries. The AFL-CIO will continue the Working Families Vote 2008 campaign to help elect a worker-friendly Congress and president.
 |
Become a Fan on Facebook |  |
Follow Us on Twitter |  |
Subscribe to YouTube |  |
Subscribe to Blog RSS | ||||
6 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I respect the decision of the SMWIA. It’s a tough situation with the upcoming merger and all. Still, having said that; I think it’s only fair to remind your membership of Clinton’s votes against Labor.
S. 3569—The Oman Free Trade Agreement expands the failed model of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Like NAFTA and CAFTA, the Oman agreement does not contain adequate environmental protections or enforceable protections for such core worker rights as the freedom of association. Oman is not a democracy, and its workers are unable to form independent unions or to bargain collectively. At the same time, the agreement allows any company incorporated in Oman to sue the U.S. government, undermining the ability of state and local governments to protect public health, strong communities and the environment. The bill passed June 29, 2006.
H.R. 6—The overhaul of the nation’s energy policy (H.R. 6) is expected to create thousands of jobs through the construction of pipelines, power plants and new nuclear power facilities. It also would allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve the construction, expansion or operation of any facility that imports or processes natural gas, including liquefied natural gas. The Senate passed the conference report on the bill July 29, 2005.
S. 2020—As part of the budget reconciliation process, which included tax cut and spending cut legislation, the Bush administration and congressional Republican leaders were seeking $70 billion in tax cuts, mostly for the wealthy, paid for in part by huge cuts in vital working family programs. After some changes, the Senate passed a $60 billion tax cut bill, with more than three-quarters of the benefits going to families with $100,000 or more in annual income. The bill passed Nov. 18, 2005.
H.R. 2739—U.S. and international labor and human rights activists long have fought to include strong and enforceable workers’ rights standards, including the freedom of association, in trade agreements. The U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement negotiated by the Bush administration did not include enforceable core labor standards. The agreement also contained a new temporary guest-worker program for professional workers entering the United States from Singapore. The bill passed July 31, 2003.
H.R. 2738—U.S. and international labor and human rights activists long have fought to include strong and enforceable workers’ rights standards, including the freedom of association, in trade agreements. The U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement negotiated by the Bush administration did not include enforceable core labor standards. The agreement also contained a new temporary guest-worker program for professional workers entering the United States from Chile. The bill passed July 31, 2003.
H.R 3295—The Help America Vote Act overhauls our nation’s election system by creating minimum national standards for voting machines, provisional ballots and statewide voter registration lists. The conference report passed Oct. 16, 2002, 92-2. (Clinton was one of only 2 Senators in the entire country to go against Labor on this one!)
Here’s where my candidate stands, in his own plain spoken words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfVrz6MChQE&sdig=1
Like I said, I know it’s a tough choice. I hope you’ll join me in making the right one.
I am suprised that anyone would endorse this early, it’s not even January, and already the presidential race has been nothing but a shark fest. No wonder the country is rife with apathy.
I know Kucinich is pro-union, but I’ve been looking at Richardson. I know he’s aggressively trying to end the Iraq war, and he has terrific energy conservation plans, but does anyone know what his actual position on Unions is, and how he feels about the working class?
Here is a interesting bit of information concerning John Edwards and his support or should I say lack of…
08/07/2007 — Statement from Larry Rasky on John Edwards’s right-to-work record:
Tonight, John Edwards said that he claimed to be a leader on union issues throughout his career. The public record does not square with Sen. Edwards’s memory.
The Facts:
Edwards Supported North Carolina Right to Work Law in 1998:
* In 1998 the Charlotte Observer reported, The AFL-CIO endorsed Edwards last spring. Faircloth used that in a TV ad, saying Edwards promised to be a warrior for labor.
In fact, Edwards said he would be a warrior for labor unions only on those issues on which they agreed. One of those issues is right-to-work laws, which prevent workers from being forced to join a union. Unions oppose such laws.
Edwards opposes a national right-to-work law, but favors North Carolina’s right-to-work law. Faircloth has introduced a national right-to-work law. [Charlotte Observer, 10/18/98.
* In 1998 the Charlotte Observer reported, As it turns out, Edwards doesn’t even agree with the labor group on their most critical issue – North Carolina’s right-to-work law.
That law, which the AFL-CIO opposes, means no one can be forced to join a union or pay dues. Edwards says he supports North Carolina’s law. But he opposes a national right-to-work law backed by Republican Faircloth. I don’t think the federal government needs to get involved with it, Edwards said.
That was good enough for James Andrews, the AFL-CIO’s executive director, who has virtually given up on finding a viable candidate who will fight North Carolina’s right-to-work law.
We understand that the Jim Hunts of the world and John Edwards of the world . . . are certainly not going to oppose the current law, Andrews said. Politically, I don’t expect to have anyone leading the charge to change that. We understand and accept that.
Edwards is not going to be 100 percent with us on all our issues, but he certainly has expressed commitment and understanding of working families. [Charlotte Observer, 10/7/98.
Source: John Edwards campaign
Edwards has gone out of his way to gain the political and economic support of the trade unions, and was the first candidate to be endorsed by a major union.
He has done this by speaking in favor of many pro-union legislative questions. But if he is so pro-labor, why has he not called for the repeal of the many pernicious anti-labor laws that are on the books, such as Taft-Hartley?
The reason is clear. For all his rhetoric, Edwards and the labor bureaucracy that endorses him are more interested in maintaining the “partnership with the bosses” approach to trade unionism, than actually defending workers’ rights and interests.
To Al_Hartl:
Surely you’re not suggesting that all the State Labor Federations and Local Unions that participate in the political processes in all the right to work “for less” and right to work “without rights” States withdraw our political participation because there are no viable candidates that denounce their State’s right to work laws? Because once such a policy became extrapolated over a few year’s time, that’s the choice that would have to ultimately be made.
Exactly how familiar with the local politics in these States do you purport to be? Our States have the LOWEST Union density in the Nation. How can Labor “throw our support” around in such localized areas, when we have such little to offer a political candidate in return? The local candidates in low Union density areas are fully aware of just how much we have to offer them; and because of that, they are somewhat reluctant to publicly advocate our causes. If we refuse to extend them a little latitude on such issues, we may as well pack our bags and leave those States altogether.
I appreciate you pointing this out to me about Edwards, but I must ask: Why in all of your comments did you not mention Kucinich? All of your comments bashing Edwards are totally ideological. If electability is not of any concern to you, why not state who you would suggest endorsing as an alternative? Which one of the candidates has been or will ever be with Labor 100% of the time? Edwards and Kucinich are the champions of Labor and the middle class in this election cycle, period! Edwards has got a real shot at winning the Democratic nomination and the Presidency; while Kucinich…well, maybe not so much.
Seems to me Edwards exercised sound judgment in balancing a deferral to call for a repeal of the North Carolina’s right to work laws while simultaneously refusing to support any National right to work legislation. Which is more than Labor would have gotten out of his opponent, Faircloth! That strategy proved successful for his election, did it not? Labor got one more voice on its side, did it not? Where is the logic of your major premise now? Surely, you are not suggesting that Labor would have been better off with the alternative in North Carolina? Just as surely, you are not suggesting that Labor would be better off with any of the other alternatives for President, now?
Vote EDWARDS!!!