Teamsters decline to endorse a candidate…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would they have endorsed Biden?

yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teamsters Statement:

https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-no-endorsement-for-u-s-president/

Leadership doesn't think either candidate is better for unions. Membership is split. 60-40 one way or the other is huge in an election, but not huge for justifying an endorsement.
They weren't impressed by Biden during the Railway strike.

Does anyone have a well-documented argument for why leadership or membership is making a mistake?

Abortion doesn't count; that's not Teamsters responsibility, even if individual members find it important for non-union reasons.

Seriously? What a joke.

Which administration has let in millions of new workers that compete with and depress wages of American workers?? Hmmm I wonder why a union wouldn't endorse such a candidate.

Which administration saved the Teamster's pensions? Why won't any of you MAGA answer this question?

Not sure who you asked before but the answer to your question doesn't seem to matter to Teamster leadership.

By the way, your response sounds very quid pro quo. Should groups be compelled to provide political support if a piece of legislation is passed in their favor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would they have endorsed Biden?

yes

We know they would have bc they already did! And that was before Biden-Harris bailed out the pensions.

Awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would they have endorsed Biden?

yes

We know they would have bc they already did! And that was before Biden-Harris bailed out the pensions.

Awful.

They endorsed Biden before Biden / Harris let in millions of workers who are willing to work for far below what a union worker has negotiated. You're harping on pensions but depressing wages and making the job market more competitive during the working years isn't supportive of American workers.

[Anonymous]

Seems like the swing state Teamster chapters are breaking with the national.

and so on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teamsters Statement:

https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-no-endorsement-for-u-s-president/

Leadership doesn't think either candidate is better for unions. Membership is split. 60-40 one way or the other is huge in an election, but not huge for justifying an endorsement.
They weren't impressed by Biden during the Railway strike.

Does anyone have a well-documented argument for why leadership or membership is making a mistake?

Abortion doesn't count; that's not Teamsters responsibility, even if individual members find it important for non-union reasons.

Seriously? What a joke.

Which administration has let in millions of new workers that compete with and depress wages of American workers?? Hmmm I wonder why a union wouldn't endorse such a candidate.

Which administration saved the Teamster's pensions? Why won't any of you MAGA answer this question?

Not sure who you asked before but the answer to your question doesn't seem to matter to Teamster leadership.

By the way, your response sounds very quid pro quo. Should groups be compelled to provide political support if a piece of legislation is passed in their favor?

According to Donald Trump they should. Do you agree with him?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teamster poll

Trump 58%
Harris 31%

Teamsters say it is too close to call so they won't endorse (with a straight face).

The leadership wanted to endorse Kamala, but their members won’t vote for the empty vessel.

Their "members" should have the freedom to vote as individuals without undue influence that can be created by an endorsement from a union or any other entity an individual may be affiliated with. Everyone should agree with this regardless of party affiliation but they won't because most people have lost all reasonable intelligence while hanging out in their political bubbles.

Members should have the right to negotiate their wages & benefits with employers individually and see how that works out.

It’s literally called a “union.” Kind of suggests a joint effort.

It isn't a joint effort when it comes to politics and who "members" vote for, dimwit. Corporations control way too much of our political landscape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We know that Trump and the Republicans are outright union busters and support rolling back worker protections that union leaders fought so hard for over the last 100 years.

But here we have some dipshit union leaders who are confused about which candidate is better for unions.

Pathetic.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teamsters Statement:

https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-no-endorsement-for-u-s-president/

Leadership doesn't think either candidate is better for unions. Membership is split. 60-40 one way or the other is huge in an election, but not huge for justifying an endorsement.
They weren't impressed by Biden during the Railway strike.

Does anyone have a well-documented argument for why leadership or membership is making a mistake?

Abortion doesn't count; that's not Teamsters responsibility, even if individual members find it important for non-union reasons.

Seriously? What a joke.

Which administration has let in millions of new workers that compete with and depress wages of American workers?? Hmmm I wonder why a union wouldn't endorse such a candidate.

Which administration saved the Teamster's pensions? Why won't any of you MAGA answer this question?

Not sure who you asked before but the answer to your question doesn't seem to matter to Teamster leadership.

By the way, your response sounds very quid pro quo. Should groups be compelled to provide political support if a piece of legislation is passed in their favor?

According to Donald Trump they should. Do you agree with him?

Why does every response lead back to Trump? I'm starting to think Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing.

I haven't said anything about Trump and Don car about him. Independent of him, given Biden and Harris policies I'm not the least bit surprised they withheld the endorsement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that Trump and the Republicans are outright union busters and support rolling back worker protections that union leaders fought so hard for over the last 100 years.

But here we have some dipshit union leaders who are confused about which candidate is better for unions.

Pathetic.

+1

Thanks for your garbage idiotic opinion Mr. Teamster. Us members are well aware of how awful Trump is. We don't need your input. Please, shut up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know that Trump and the Republicans are outright union busters and support rolling back worker protections that union leaders fought so hard for over the last 100 years.

But here we have some dipshit union leaders who are confused about which candidate is better for unions.

Pathetic.

+1

Two things...
1. They didn't endorse Trump either and
2. Someone should explain the concept of sample size to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I hope Harris does remember this moving forward. No more pension bailouts, fellas, and don't go crying to anyone if you end up with a union-busting administration!

I expect Harris to govern honorably, not follow Trump into selling Presidential favors for personal gain.

I am sure democrats will come up with some racket to loot the tax payer.

https://nypost.com/2024/08/23/opinion/kamalas-brother-in-law-fleeced-taxpayers-for-billions-to-give-to-left-wing-groups-and-lawyers/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teamsters Statement:

https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-no-endorsement-for-u-s-president/

Leadership doesn't think either candidate is better for unions. Membership is split. 60-40 one way or the other is huge in an election, but not huge for justifying an endorsement.
They weren't impressed by Biden during the Railway strike.

Does anyone have a well-documented argument for why leadership or membership is making a mistake?

Abortion doesn't count; that's not Teamsters responsibility, even if individual members find it important for non-union reasons.

Seriously? What a joke.

Which administration has let in millions of new workers that compete with and depress wages of American workers?? Hmmm I wonder why a union wouldn't endorse such a candidate.

Which administration saved the Teamster's pensions? Why won't any of you MAGA answer this question?

Biden proudly gave an average of $100K of our collective tax payments to each of 360,000 Teamsters. $100K each!
I guess the mob always demands more!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact they won't endorse Kamala says a lot

Yes! It says that misogyny, hypocrisy and ignorance are thriving in America today

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teamsters Statement:

https://teamster.org/2024/09/teamsters-no-endorsement-for-u-s-president/

Leadership doesn't think either candidate is better for unions. Membership is split. 60-40 one way or the other is huge in an election, but not huge for justifying an endorsement.
They weren't impressed by Biden during the Railway strike.

Does anyone have a well-documented argument for why leadership or membership is making a mistake?

Abortion doesn't count; that's not Teamsters responsibility, even if individual members find it important for non-union reasons.

Seriously? What a joke.

Which administration has let in millions of new workers that compete with and depress wages of American workers?? Hmmm I wonder why a union wouldn't endorse such a candidate.

Which administration saved the Teamster's pensions? Why won't any of you MAGA answer this question?

Not sure who you asked before but the answer to your question doesn't seem to matter to Teamster leadership.

By the way, your response sounds very quid pro quo. Should groups be compelled to provide political support if a piece of legislation is passed in their favor?

According to Donald Trump they should. Do you agree with him?

Why does every response lead back to Trump? I'm starting to think Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing.

I haven't said anything about Trump and Don car about him. Independent of him, given Biden and Harris policies I'm not the least bit surprised they withheld the endorsement.

Their policy of handing millions to the teamsters to bail out their pensions?

I guess they would’ve preferred for their pensions to disappear.