Results and thoughts surrounding the No Endorsement

[John Palmer]

HAVING IT BOTH WAYS

Sean O’Brien has dug the International Brotherhood of Teamsters into an “endorsement” hole he can’t get out of.

What the public is seeing now, after Local Teamster organizations around the country began announcing their last-minute endorsements of Harris, is nothing more than a cynical attempt to have it both ways. The Presidents of the various Joint Councils now endorsing Harris including many, if not most, of the same people who voted to NOT endorse Harris on the national level. A hypocritical and dangerous conundrum to say the least.

These regional endorsements began flowing to media outlets almost immediately following the National unions’ announcement of no endorsement. Surely this was no coincidence and part of a contrived plan from the get-go.

The hand-picked Rank and File questioners that participated in every roundtable were polled after the Harris meeting. They unequivocally asserted their support for Vice President Harris and her positions supporting the Teamsters and the larger labor movement.

Clearly, Teamsters leadership believes they can have it both ways by voting one way at the national level and the opposite at the local level. Seemingly attempting to preserve their status locally while giving Sean O’Brien the cover he needs to keep whatever commitments he’s made to Donald Trump.

Here is the actual tally of votes from the General Executive Board members who participated in the GEB endorsement vote:

Final Poll results.jpg

[DanaCos]

Is asking the membership who "WE" should endorse a bad idea? Isn't that the job of the people that represent me supposed to do? I could care less about most of those people on the board, but when they do their job right, I don't and will never criticism them for it.

[Nickjamesups]

Agreed , but explain to me how they vote not to endorse when they are in the room with O’Brien and then go back to their locals and announce their endorsement?

[DanaCos]

Agreed , but explain to me how they vote not to endorse when they are in the room with O’Brien and then go back to their locals and announce their endorsement?

Nick,

I don't want get in to the politics of it all but the membership should always run the union. Same goes with contracts. Look what happened in 2013 when our contract at UPS was pushed on us. John knows how I feel. I already told him on the phone how I feel about O'Brien and my disappointments how the 2013 contract was handled. I know blue dog Democrats who refuse to vote for Kamala.

I feel it is Sean's job to learn why we don't want to vote for her. The vote wasn't even close. There are reasons why 1 million out of 1.3 million refuse to involve themselves in our own elections. If you ask me, people are fed up how our union has been run for years.

You do have a good point. Why vote the way you did then go back to their membership and say something different? Perhaps they need confronted about it.

[califeederdrvr]

This can’t be accurate. Why would the West Coast Vp’s vote no then immediately endorse Harris for JC 42? Our local reps are saying that all of the California Locals voted yes and the JC 42 endorsement was unanimous.

[Watcher745]

That’s the point of this post ! We did not endorse nationally because they voted not to ! Yet when they get back home they endorse.

[JWebb]

It wasn't just the California VP's and Joint Councils. Looks like several of the VP's who voted no endorsement went home and voted to endorse Harris.

[Gimliboston9]

Perrone posted a photo of Harris and called her “ the next president” he is widely know in his local to be a Trump opponent yet he voted not to endorse! Let’s see what his local does.

[JWebb]

Interesting list of the courageous Vice Presidents unable to either be at at the meeting or vote: Juan Campos, Matt Taibi, Tony Jones and Rick Hicks. Way to represent guys.

[Gimliboston9]

Hicks already endorsed Harris in his local.

[DanaCos]

This can’t be accurate. Why would the West Coast Vp’s vote no then immediately endorse Harris for JC 42? Our local reps are saying that all of the California Locals voted yes and the JC 42 endorsement was unanimous.

It was because they had straw.polls and people are easily corrupted when they go to vote in person. A vast majority of people that think differently than the union do not bother to even step foot in their union hall. That's why they call it the silent majority.

[califeederdrvr]

What was the total number of people who voted in the first, second, and third polls? Everyone here at the yard said they didn’t know there was a third. And BTW I have lived in California all my life, I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t vote for Harris she’s always been 100% pro union.

[Jon Guest]

Showing how our officers voted is amazing. Let’s see if they stand bye their votes or the denial to endorse and why? This vote is of there own will.

post this list on your local Facebook pages

[Bob Randall]

Kudos to the three that set their fears of retaliation aside and voted their minds and hearts. I am confident that among the others there were some (most) that prefered a Harris endorsement. Here is a long standing problem within the Teamsters Union (as well as other unions). Internationals have a history of retaliating in a number of ways as do other internal bodies that can exert some level of power. I'm referring to obstructionism. That is a practice of preventing the "lower" bodies from accomplishing the right thing for the membership. This vote clearly shows some of the GEB members had that concern and did not wish to "rock the boat". THAT'S OUR HISTORY! It is prevelant even at the Local levels. Especially with respect to grievance panels. In my Local I was responsible for handling grievances within a regional CBA that included other Locals. My Local's politics were a bit different from most of the Locals involved. For no other reason than that I had grievances that were decided before I walked through the door to present the members' case. I'm positive that it has happened at the UPS panels as well. I'm not saying that I have a definite solution. I'm saying that it happens and it's clear to me that this was a concern among GEB members in this case.

[Graveyard]

If you ever wanted to endorse without endorsing, O’Brien just provided a foul-smelling road map. From slinking to Mar-a-Logo to the no endorsement announcement, O’Brien’s choice is clear, the anti-union/worker candidate.

As individuals we are free to vote for any candidates for any reasons. As (so called) leaders of our union, O’Brien and the GEB’s basic duty and responsibility is to move this union in a direction that best ensures improvements in members and our family’s lives, regardless of their personal opinions. The difference in track records of both candidates is so clear-cut that even to O’Brien the choice should have been the easiest a GP had to make, which candidate will advance our goals, which will not?

Now the question is, WHY? Why make us look weak, why make us the laughing stock of labor, why place a wedge between us and the political party that has supported us? Was it just for attention, personal belief over duty, a Mar-a-Logo backroom deal to appease O’Brien’s ego, inability to provide leadership or appeasing both sides of the membership driven by fear of losing the next Teamster election?

There is a next Teamster election, isn’t there? It is getting late.

[Bob Randall]

Agreed. So many officers/agents believe that self serving appearances, as opposed to comprehensive actions in the best interest of the membership, wins elections. Simply doing your job well in the best interest of the members practically assures one of re-election. As divided as we are over this issue...no endorsement alone would prevent an incumbent from winning relection. However, the self serving lack of endorsement for one or more reasons will certainly have at least some negative affect on the membership. Indefensible.

[Tony R Cochran]

As usual, the rank-and-file members in the room to "make decisions" are simply placed at kid's table. Or better yet, they are wallpaper meant to give the room a look of "democracy." The rank-and-file members selected included, I believe, my own local VP. I hope that this will make him consider running against Davison. I would vote for Mr. Brown.

[WTF891]

Buckle your chinstrap, took too many shots to that bald head. It's not easy playing second string in Medford