Make a tax-deductible contribution today and get exclusive Vonnegut gear!
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Features > July 23, 2007

The Unions’ Man?

John Edwards does more than talk the talk on workers’ but will he walk away with labor’s endorsement?

By David Moberg

If the labor movement put its formidable ground operations behind Edwards it could lift him out of his current third place in the polls and give him a better shot at the nomination.

Tags   

Dressed in gently faded jeans and a solid dark-blue sport shirt, John Edwards sauntered across the stage of the Northwest Junior High School auditorium on a hot Saturday morning in June, talking to a labor union audience that was warm to him from his opening words.

“My view is not that complicated,” Edwards told the charter convention of Iowa’s Change to Win labor federation in his polished but folksy manner. “If we want to strengthen and grow the middle class in this country, if we want to grow America economically, if we want to see millions of people lifted out of poverty, the organized labor movement is a critical component of that. That’s the reason that wherever I am, I talk about making it easier to organize in the workplace, why that’s important for lifting people out of poverty and to strengthen the middle class.”

Politicians often praise unions at union halls, though rarely so effusively. But as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Edwards’ rhetoric goes a couple of steps farther.

A few days before, at a trendy bar in the affluent Streeterville neighborhood in Chicago, Edwards told a group of mainly young Democratic business and professional people that America needed to strengthen the right to organize and create “democracy in the workplace.” And an hour after his Change to Win appearance, he made essentially the same pitch to a crowd of several hundred potential Iowa caucus-goers in the sheep barn at the Johnson County Fairgrounds.

Edwards walks the talk as well, often on picket lines. The week after his swing through Iowa, he joined a rally at the giant Smithfield hog processing plant in his home state to demand that the company, a notorious labor law violator, recognize workers when a majority signs union cards. During the past two years, the Edwards campaign claims, the former senator and vice-presidential candidate has taken part in more than 200 different union events with more than 20 unions, including a national contract campaign tour for hotel workers, a fast with janitors organizing at the University of Miami and an airport rally in Texas for Continental Airlines ramp employees who were organizing.

“He’s redefined the way public officials engage the ongoing work of the labor movement,” says Chris Chafe, the former chief of staff of UNITE HERE and one of several labor officials with high-level positions in the Edwards campaign—not counting campaign manager David Bonior, the former staunchly pro-union congressman who previously headed American Rights at Work, a labor-rights advocacy group. “I don’t think anyone has come so close in recent memory to putting himself so squarely behind issues central to the labor movement. We’d welcome institutional endorsements, but our goal is to have workers and union leaders focus on what he does as well as what he says.”

If the labor movement put its formidable operations behind Edwards it could lift him out of his current third place in the pools and give him a better shot at the nomination. But odds are that unions will be divided. Some are so internally split that they may not be able to make an endorsement. Some will emphasize factors such as familiarity and electability since they see most of the candidates as politically acceptable, even if Edwards has most clearly identified his candidacy with the labor movement. Yet even if they’re divided, unions could still make a difference—if they don’t cancel each other out: In the 2004 Iowa caucus, for example, Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean labor backers fought each other so brutally that both candidates suffered.

Most unions are holding internal discussions, polling members, holding presidential forums and setting tests for candidates—such as the Service Employees’ request that each candidate spend a day working with one of its members. (Edwards leapt to be first to take part in the “walk a day in my shoes” exercise.) In August, the AFL-CIO will host a candidates’ debate in Chicago and then begin deliberations on a unified endorsement. Only two candidates have ever mustered the two-thirds support needed—Walter Mondale in 1984 and Al Gore in 2000. Although some labor strategists argue that Edwards could pass that bar, more observers agree with AFSCME Political Director Larry Scanlon that “it will be very hard for any candidate to amass the two-thirds for the AFL-CIO endorsement.” Despite his close work with Change to Win unions, Edwards is no shoo-in for their endorsement either.

A hill to climb

Edwards faces several obstacles. Unlike recent primaries, when many union strategists complained about the unappealing choices they faced, this season “people talk about the quality of the candidates,” says AFL-CIO Political Director Karen Ackerman. “All of the candidates have long-term relationships with lots of [union] members and leaders.” Perhaps challenged by Edwards’ early identification with labor, other candidates have developed a stronger union message than, for example, Bill Clinton ever did. Hillary Clinton can tap into her ties to New York’s huge union membership and union leaders’ familiarity with her and her husband. Barack Obama has close ties to the big labor bloc from Illinois, sympathy from many black trade union members and a broad progressive appeal. Meanwhile, Edwards comes from a state with nearly the nation’s lowest union density, and in the 2004 primary he won only one endorsement, from the textile union UNITE.

“Labor generally likes Edwards in terms of what he says on the two Americas and labor,” says Janice Laue, executive vice-president of the Iowa Federation of Labor, in the critical early caucus state where Edwards has led most recent polls. “On the other hand, you have Hillary Clinton, who, like Obama, has support from individuals in the labor movement. Her husband’s popularity probably carries over a little too, not to say she isn’t popular in her own right. And a lot of people think Obama represents diversity, a fresh face, and they like what he did at the Democratic convention. But the labor movement is about as split up among those three [leading candidates] as anybody else.”

Ultimately, many unionists feel that Edwards is, as one official put it, “one of us.” Despite his personal wealth, he is the son of a millworker who has made poverty and class divisions central to his campaign. He strikes many industrial unionists as the most sensitive of the top three candidates to their concerns about trade and globalization. And he’s campaigned concretely and vigorously for universal health care, most recently proposing additional cost-control measures, such as making critical drugs available more promptly as generics and limiting private health insurance company overhead. “Lots of people like John because he’s talking about our issues every day,” says Steelworkers Political Director Chuck Rocha. “Right now, he’s making people in the labor movement feel important.”

Unions, however, want to go with a winner (which is why so many offer Rep. Dennis Kucinich as an example of someone who is right on nearly all the issues for labor but without a prayer for labor support). “What matters is who can win in ‘08,” says Scanlon. “That’s the driver.” On that count, Roger Tauss, legislative and political director of the Transport Workers Union, notes that Rasmussen surveys have recently shown Edwards as the only Democrat to consistently outpoll all the top Republican nominees. “It is not true that Hillary can’t win,” he says. “Under certain conditions, any Democrat can win. But she has no margin for error.”

Next page »Page 1 of 2
David Moberg, a senior editor of In These Times, has been on the staff of the magazine since it began publishing. Before joining In These Times, he completed his work for a Ph.D. in anthropology at the University of Chicago and worked for Newsweek. Recently he has received fellowships from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Nation Institute for research on the new global economy.

More information about David Moberg
Tags   
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    John Edwards is not the obvious posterboy for either poverty or unions.  He has no history as an advocate for either cause, either as a lawyer or as a politician. 

    On the contrary, Edwards has done much to impoverish the very people he seeks to represent.  Doctors in North Carolina cite Edwards as a main cause of the rise in their medical malpractice premiums, dating back to when Edwards was winning multi-million dollar awards in medical malpractice suits and driving some doctors out of North Carolina or out of the medical profession altogether.  Higher insurance premiums and fewer medical practitioners both serve to raise the cost and limit the availability of medical services for everyone. 

    So, how did Edwards come to adopt poverty and unions as the signature themes in his presidential campaign?  By process of elimination, obviously.

    Edwards certainly could not run as a rich tort lawyer, because being a tort lawyer and being rich are causes of diapprobation in this political climate.  He had no foreign policy experience.  He had no domestic experience.  He had no work experience.  He had no technical experience.  He evidenced no scientific training or experience, as his emotional courtroom arguments convinced jurors, but were widely discounted and ridiculed by the medical and scientific communities. 

    As improbable and ludicrous as it is, becoming the champion of the poor and of the working man was the only semi-plausible route open to Edwards.  Now, if he can just reconcile his $400 haircuts with the attitudes and aspirations of working people.

    Politics and ambition make strange bedfellows.

    Posted by scorp on Jul 23, 2007 at 10:30 AM

    Doctors pay high medical insurance premiums because they or their colleagues occasionally commit medical malpractice.  Someone fails to perform a necessary test, usually because the health insurance provider won’t cover the entire cost of the procedure, or prescribes a poorly tested medication, and a patient is crippled for life, or dead.  That you would sympathize with the people who commit the malpractice, and against the people who suffer it, betrays your typical preference for the upper middle-class professional over the working-class laborer.  I suppose in your fantasyland of a perfect free-market economy we should all just shut up and be grateful for whatever medical attention we can get from your noble colleagues in the modern medical priesthood.  Unfortunately, the people who actually work for a living are the same people who can least afford to pay for the professional services of those who sit on their fat butts all day and pretend to do likewise.

    Posted by Major Major on Jul 23, 2007 at 6:20 PM

    MM -

    You really need to get yourself better informed.  There is this marvelous Internet system called “Google” which contains all kinds of fascinating information.  I highly recommend it. 

    Edwards earned (?) 50 awards of $1 million or more, and he kept one-third of each award.  Edwards concentrated on psychiatric and cerebral palsey malpractice cases, and the science does not support the arguments that Edwards convinced the jurors of.  Do not end a sentence with a preposition.

    Edwards used a combination of psychic chicanery, witchdoctory, and flim-flamery to make himself very rich, and fifty unfortunate people moderately rich, and left millions of people in North Carolina and across the nation paying out tens or hundreds of dollars for increased insurance costs. 

    And you find virtue in this?  You not only need a strong dose of information and facts, your values could stand some upgrading.

    Posted by scorp on Jul 23, 2007 at 11:39 PM

    Public service is one of the noblest of causes an individual can undertake; a task undertaken by Edwards for which he deserves much credit. Regardless of his history as a trial lawyer and how he made his money, there is no doubt in my mind that he is genuinely in the pursuit of helping America’s poor. He has thus far dedicated and proven himself to a cause which most politicians seem to ignore. He has definitely done the work at the grassroots level

    Posted by DavionRL on Jul 24, 2007 at 12:36 PM

    Davion -

    You are as gullible as a goose.

    In twenty years as a tort lawyer, Edwards made himself rich, and did absolutely nothing to help the poor, except for the fifty people whose cases he won.  Millions of people in North Crolina and across the nation ended up paying higher insurance premiums.

    After becoming rich, Edwards opted for political power, and then he discovered the attractiveness of poverty and unions.  How convenient!

    He (Edwards) has thus far dedicated and proven himself to a cause which most politicians seem to ignore.

    You shitting me, boy?  There was a man named Johnson who was President, who initiated a poverty program, which was a part of his “Great Society” programs.  The poverty programs cost $6 trillion from the 1960s to the 1990s.  The results were a disaster, destroying black families and achieving no beneficial results.  It was so bad, President Clinton cancelled much of the welfare programs. 

    I suspect you genuinely do not know any of this.  If you are that ignorant, what do you expect me to do about it, send you to school?

    Posted by scorp on Jul 24, 2007 at 5:30 PM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 9 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Also by David Moberg

Your financial support of In These Times is critical, because contributions keep the contents of inthesetimes.com free and open to all readers.

Donate now and get a Kurt Vonnegut mug or t-shirt!

Popular Discussions