In another sign that it is election time, I was approached by the Daily Californian to talk about an article
they were writing regarding the right of the Berkeley Police Union to endorse
candidates for City Council in Berkeley.
At the heart of
the discussion was concerns by non-endorsed candidates whether the BPA had the
right to do so or as the interviewer put it "don"t you think they are
legitimate concerns? is there a positive outcome for the endorsed? are there
any negative aspects to endorsing?"
I am quoted as
saying: "so candidates criticizing BPA’s decision to
endorse candidates would be hypocritical and offensive".
So let me clarify
the statement. As a union household, strong supporter of unions and having a
spouse as a member of an union E-board not only do I believe that
unions have the right to determine whether any and all candidates have their member's
best interest at heart but to question their right to this basic representation would be disingenuous.
It would be hypocritical an offensive to say
that the BPA does not have the right to endorse candidates to any race while
candidates actively engage the AFL-CIO, SEIU and CNA for their endorsement.
Referring to the BPA as an association while
dismissing the fact that is a union is to minimize the work it does on behalf
of its membership and the value unions bring to the city of Berkeley and its Progressive politics.
I was then asked if the Police Review Commission had ever taken a stance on this. My response was that any commission or entity that would engage in a discussion of whether in an union town said unions had the right to weigh in the political process by determining whether a candidate represented their membership interests would do so at its own foolish peril.
Not because of the consequences but because to infer that unions should not engage the political process would be fully contradictory to the tenets by which unions were created in the first place. To change the dynamic and engage the decision making via the legislative and elected process.
Not because of the consequences but because to infer that unions should not engage the political process would be fully contradictory to the tenets by which unions were created in the first place. To change the dynamic and engage the decision making via the legislative and elected process.
"The labor movement in the United States grew out of the need to protect the common interests of workers. For those in the industrial sector, organized labor unions fought for better wages, reasonable hours and safer working conditions". http://www.history.com/topics/labor
I guess it might be easy for some to forget that paid family leave, vacation, medical insurance, safe working environment (OSHA) etc etc were created via the labor movement and collective bargaining. None of this changes in working conditions would have been successful without an involvement in politics and the legislative process.
It is then difficult to understand why the topic of " should they be allowed to endorse?" has surfaced during this political campaign. The BPA has the right to determine and weigh-in on whether any candidate holds public safety as paramount in their candidacy and as part of their vision for the City of Berkeley.
To infer that because of an endorsement a candidate then would be compromised in their actions and votes to the Union is to minimize the candidates belief in public safety and the unions sacred trust to represent their membership.
If a candidate does not want the endorsement from a particular union, then said candidate should not get involved in the process of endorsement.
But lets be clear, that choice should no be the basis for denying the right to the union to fight for their membership and to pick and choose which unions can or can not endorse is simple cherry picking and hypocritical.
