PS
Teamsters union opts to not endorse any presidential candidate
Because this report mentions: "the Teamsters released polling of union members showing a nearly two-to-one preference for former President Donald Trump over Vice President Kamala Harris" I suspect there may have been a schism between labor ("rank & file") and management.
Rather than management giving in to the 2:1 labor Trump preference, management sidestepped the controversy by withholding the Teamsters endorsement entirely.
If not that, what? #522
Teamsters on Wednesday posted the results of internal polling on the 2024 candidates, showing that the union's members favored Trump by 59.6% over Democratic nominee Vice President Harris, who received 34% in an online survey. In a phone survey, Teamsters favored Trump over Harris, 58% to 31%.
Still, the union declined to endorse a 2024 presidential candidate ...
"With the "internal" poll numbers below, how could the @Teamsters leadership IGNORE their rank and file members and NOT support @realDonaldTrump?!?!" CNN commentator David J. Urban posted on X.
"NO ENDORSEMENT IS RIDICULOUS!!!," he wrote in a follow-up post.
"Union bosses taking care of their members, or themselves?" Virginia state delegate Nick Freitas posted.
Teamsters leadership faced online backlash after announcing the union would not endorse a candidate for the presidential election, despite a majority of its members supporting former President Trump.
www.foxbusiness.com
Endorse, or not may be a binary. BUT: union bosses taking care of members or themselves is not
necessarily the only possibility.
One possible alternate:
Union bosses taking care of their members, the whole People, the nation, and humanity by doing what little they can to help avoid the potentially cataclysmic consequences of a Trump win this November.
If it were merely a matter of:
- candidate A wants to cut taxes a little,
- candidate B wants to raise taxes a little to improve public safety, health care, etc
we could consider that a political quibble.
In this case Trump, the candidate favored by 59.6% is not merely a convicted felon, but instrumental, a primary to the greatest threat to the United States Constitution since the war of Northern aggression, known to some as the Civil War.
This distinction is between what the union bosses did, and why.
Certainly is conspicuous, with a nearly 6 in 10 preference for Trump.
But that is not conclusive proof the non-endorsement is exploitive, advantaging themselves to the detriment of rank & file. Not necessarily.
