troubling (0.00 / 0)

I find these at-work caucuses troubling.  I think that it opens the door for the union to force the members to support Obama.  I mean just think - they will march everyone down to the caucus where your vote will be out there for your coworkers - and the union rep - to see.  I know that I wouldn't be able to vote my conscience in front of my boss where I work.

If Nevada wanted to increase participation, fine.  But it shouldn't be done like this.  A primary would have been a much better idea.  If they really want caucuses, they should be done in the evenings, and where people live.  Caucuses, which I have attended here in Minnesota, are places to meet your neighbors and talk about the issues that you all face.

---

by: eric @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 20:10:26 PM UTC

As a former union organizer (4.00 / 1)

I think any worries about union members somehow being intimidated by their reps doesn't make any sense. Union members tell their reps what to do, not the other way around. Further, there is no possible way that a union could punish a member for not voting the way the union endorsed.

It isn't a "boss to worker" relationship. 

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 20:16:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Besides ... (0.00 / 0)

plenty of union people like the Clintons .. and think they are friends of labor(whether it is true or not is another story)

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 20:25:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So that could never happen? (0.00 / 0)

After the union endorsed Obama there were grumblings among the rank and file that the members weren't consulted and had no say in the endorsement.

But I guess, as you say, that never happens....

---

by: corinne @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 20:32:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What I can't see happening (4.00 / 1)

Is a union rep going to a member and saying "vote for Obama, or else." The reason I can't see this happening is, first, that it will piss off the union member and possible lead to a decertification campaign. Second, or else what? What could a union rep possibly do in retaliation?

There will be voter education attempts, but those didn't work in Iowa. Edwards came in third among union members in Iowa, despite having the most endorsements in the state. In and of itself, I think that invalidates this entire line of reasoning. 

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 20:36:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Edwards came in third (0.00 / 0)

among union "households" not among union members.  That was not surveyed.  So students whose parents are unions members would have been counted as part of the union households.

It was not a good question and did not give good information.  it still may be valid but we don't know for sure.

Join other progressives at EENRblog

---

by: pioneer @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 23:32:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There Is Still (0.00 / 0)

voter supression going on here as the people such as teachers who are forced to man the caucus sites cannot vote in their precincts and are not being allowed to caucus at the sites they are manning. So there is definitely some inequality in play here.

Mcjoan at dkos is in Vegas and is reporting pressure from the union to get workers to the caucus. That's also unfair as voters should be able to make up their own minds without undue pressure.

This is truly an unfair system to both Edwards and Clinton but yet not a word is being said to stand up for them or the people forced to man the caucus sites cannot vote.

mcjoan:

What I do keep hearing is some confusion about how exactly a caucus works. It doesn't appear that the unions have been able to do a lot of training of their members, so that's the major unknown factor here. This is the first presidential caucus the state has held, so it's difficult to predict both turnout and organization. There have been allegations of union pressure on its members, but they haven't been widespread, so it's difficult to know how much pressure there will be on the workers to caucus. Taking an hour or two out of the workday seems like a challenge for these folks, even if the caucus is at their workplace.

More from mcjoan:

This is presumed to be a boost to Obama, since he has the Culinary Workers endorsement, the union that represents the shift workers in the casinos. I've been in Vegas for the last couple of days, and have talked to some of the folks at my hotel, where one of the at-large caucuses are happening. There are a lot of union solidarity buttons in this crowd, but varying levels of excitement about Saturday's events.

---

by: byebyegeorge @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 21:30:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

THERE IS STILL (0.00 / 0)

"voter supression going on here as the people such as teachers who are forced to man the caucus sites cannot vote in their precincts and are not being allowed to caucus at the sites they are manning. So there is definitely some inequality in play here."

RHIS IS PATENTLY FALSE:

Their will be no teacher's required to man these sites. It is the janitor's and maintenance worker's that will be required to be at the school sites. Not all caucus sites are at schools.

---

by: BDM @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 21:40:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hello? (0.00 / 0)

"such as teachers".

Meaning there are other people other than teachers involved also. Janitor's and maintenance workers don't have a right to vote? How about other classes of workers at non-schools sites - they don't have the advantage of the casino workers.

It's just an unfair process anyway you want to slice it.

---

by: byebyegeorge @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 21:46:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's different at the casino locations (0.00 / 0)

The union may be able to determine who the casion managers let leave their shift to go caucus. The caucus takes up to 1-2 hours.  Almost eveyone working there at that time frame is a member of the CWA. Not every worker can be allowed to caucus in that time frame....because the casino would just stop functioning.

So how do you actually get the time off to go caucus?  Well the union intervenes with the employer, the casino, to let x number of persons to leave.  It also seems the union could intervene in terms of who is allowed to go caucus.

Indeed from an article in the Las Vegas Sun about such an incident in which they very much let the union off the hook...I think

http://www.lasvegass...

"But Antuna tells a different story. She said she was filling out a voter registration form when the union reps approached her about Obama. When she told them she wasn't sure about caucusing for him, one rep took her registration form, indeed telling her that she couldn't participate Saturday if she wasn't supporting Obama"

snip

then after it created a brouhaha with other CWA members who protested the union rep's behavior this is said in the update

"In fact, Antuna said the Culinary called her later to inform her the union had received her voter registration form, spoken with her supervisor and that she was clear to caucus during her shift on Saturday."

So indeed it does seems the union controls who get to caucus because it intercedes with the casino as to who will be allowed to leave their shift to go caucus.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 00:12:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe not before... (4.00 / 3)

To tell you the truth, I don't even know if it will help Obama, since there doesn't appear to be any difference in who union members and non-union members support so far in the primaries.

Well, I can't really speak for any of those workers since I'm not one. But it seems to me that if I were one of the people voting in the Casino locations, I'd be incredibly unlikely to vote for Clinton after she, her husband, and her campaign just spent a week asserting I shouldn't be allowed to vote. If the union workers were actually more or less split before, well, they're probably not anymore.

---

by: mcc @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 20:18:30 PM UTC

Hey Chris (4.00 / 1)

did you catch Bill Clinton blowing up at a SF reporter?  He presents an argument against the at large precincts that I have not seen anywhere else.  SFChron blog:

Matthews asked Clinton about the perception that the challenges were filed only after the culinary union's recent Obama endorsement.

Clinton, just inches from his face, fired back.

''There were teachers who filed the lawsuit. You have asked the question in an accusatory way, so I will ask you back,'' the former president said. ''Do you really believe that all the Democrats understood that they had agreed to give people who worked in the casino a vote worth five times as much as people who voted in their own precinct?''

''Did you know that? Their votes will be counted five times more powerfully, in terms of delegates to the state convention, compared to delegates to the antional convention.''

What the heck is he talking about?

This indeed was a victory against voter suppression.  People's fears about union intimidation are overblown and seem to have an attachment to the reputation of old unions, not the current reality.  There are absolutely exceptions to this rule, overzealous Obama supporter etc, but by and large it rarely happens.

---

by: Julia Rosen @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 20:26:58 PM UTC

Repeating what the plaintiffs lawyers said (4.00 / 1)

That was apparently one of the claims of the actual lawsuit itself:

The lawsuit argues that the Nevada Democratic Party's decision, decided late last year, to create at-large precincts inside nine Las Vegas resorts on caucus day violates the state's election laws and creates a system in which voters at the at-large precincts can elect more delegates than voters at other precincts. The lawsuit employs a complex mathematical formula to show that voters at the other 1,754 precincts would have less influence with their votes.

I don't know what their "complex mathematical formula" is since I don't know where to find the actual filings and rulings on this suit. But like everything else about this case, the immediate question to my mind is if this is a problem, why did nobody notice this six months ago back when there was still time to fix it without disenfranchising the casino workers?

---

by: mcc @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 20:41:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's possible (0.00 / 0)

that groups opposed to this system didn't find out about it until late in the game. This would not be the first time that a lawsuits was filed in the 11th hour due to discovery of something adverse. The ACLU files 11th hour lawsuits all the time. So do a number of environmental organizations.

As for the theory that it was filed late because of the advantage that the endorsement would give Obama - Well Duh!

I suppose that everyone here would just let their opponent grab an unfair advantage and you wouldn't do a thing about it? Highly unlikely.

---

by: byebyegeorge @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 21:42:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tell me (0.00 / 0)

When did the democratic process become 'an unfair advantage'?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 23:09:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This WILL be an advantage for Obama (4.00 / 1)

Not because of any split in support between union & non-union members...

Not because of the formal union endorsement (the individual members can still do what they want)...

But because of the blowback to the Clinton campaign for the role their supporters have played in trying to disenfranchise the Strip workers.

As with everything, there will be plenty of those who are already committed to one of the 3 candidates, and who will not change their minds.

But for everyone who works on the Strip who is on the fence between Obama/Clinton or Edwards/Clinton, it will be very hard to come to a caucus whose existence the Clinton campaign tacitly (and even directly) attacked and cast a vote for HRC.

This will result in a boost of a couple points or so for Obama & Edwards. I predict the results in NV will be very similar to those in IA.

---

by: scottso @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 20:41:06 PM UTC

must win (0.00 / 0)

I want to believe you. I never thought Obama could win Nevada, an old fashioned machine state, and now unfortunately its a must win.  However, the Obama love is back in the air and the Clintons look a little desperate, but NH was such a disappointment that I won't hold my breath.

---

by: aiko @ Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 22:01:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton takes a hit (0.00 / 0)

Not due to the endorsement, but due to the lawsuit. It seems like this could be a big deal and could get more people to not vote for Clinton, if not vote for Obama. People take voter suppression seriously when they are the victim, and the casino workers aren't likely to forget this in 48 hours.

---

by: Kal @ Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 00:15:54 AM UTC