Florida Governor Charlie Crist is picking up strong Democratic backing in his independent campaign for U.S. Senator. Al Lawson, Florida Senate Minority Leader, is the latest prominent Florida Democrat to embrace the Crist campaign. Labor leaders and Democratic activists are leaning toward Crist as they become increasingly skeptical of the Kendrick Meek candidacy. Meek is consistently running third place in the polls and has a questionable track record on working families issues.
Five Florida Teamster locals have announced their support for the U.S. Senate candidacy of Crist. Endorsing Crist are Local 79 in Tampa, Local 173 in Bradenton, Local 385 in Orlando, Local 947 in Jacksonville and Local 991 in Mobile, Ala., with Teamster members in the Panhandle.
The Teamsters decided to endorse Crist because of his commitment to creating jobs and rebuilding the economy, issues vital to working families.
"Charlie Crist is a good governor who cares more about people than party," said Local 79 President Ken Wood. "He stood up for President Obama's stimulus package when he thought it would help working families in Florida, even though he took a lot of flak from his own party for doing so."
Crist supports relief for pension funds hurt by Wall Street's meltdown, said Wood, who is also an International Vice President for the union and President of Joint Council 75.
Crist also advocates the Express Carrier Employee Protection Act, which would put employees of all express package delivery companies under the same labor law, Wood said.
"We need to elect politicians who listen to us, who represent us and who protect us, and that's exactly what Charlie Crist has done for Florida's working families," Wood said.
In contrast, an essay from Working Life questions Kendrick Meek and his votes as a Congressman for free trade agreements. Instead of protecting American jobs, Meek has sided with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others who want more outsourcing and free trade deals.
Why Should Labor Support Kendrick Meek?
11/15/2009
When NAFTA was passed in 1993, I, and others, argued that the labor movement should mount primary challenges to every Democrat who voted for the legislation,” writes Jonathan Tasini in the on-line Working Life. “After all, labor correctly saw NAFTA as the underpinning for a trade policy that would hasten the evolution of a global economy based on one thing: the search for the lowest wage possible. And that is the kind of trade policy that we now have. The labor movement did nothing, however, to hold the pro-NAFTA Democrats accountable.
“Then came CAFTA -- the Central American Free Trade Agreement. It passed thanks to 15 Democrats who voted for the deal in the House. I argued back then that those 15 Democrats should be held accountable for that vote. But, again, they were not. And, in response, the labor movement has had to fight more NAFTA-style trade agreements.
“Which brings us to the current moment. I pointed out recently that Rep. Kendrick Meek dropped his support for a very important piece of legislation spearheaded by Rep. Mike Michaud. There is only one reason Meek did so -- he is running for the U.S. Senate seat in Florida and wants to attract corporate money to his campaign. Ringing up dollars from sources that are not friendly to the labor movement is not a new thing for Mr. Meek: he took in thousands of dollars from Wal-Mart (as did, in fairness, other Democrats). And it is likely his sudden change of heart on the TRADE Act will aid him again, as reported by CongressDaily PM [Thursday]:
“‘The U.S. Chamber of Commerce this week wrote to Rep. Kendrick Meek, D-Fla., thanking him for removing his name from a bill that could force the United States to renegotiate several existing and pending trade agreements...
“‘"The Chamber appreciates your record of support for agreements that have opened foreign markets for U.S. exports and created American jobs," Josten wrote. He added his group thanked Meek for recognizing the Michaud bill "would have the opposite effect."’
“Let's be clear -- the Chamber is doing what it does in the current electoral financing system. I don't fault the Chamber. Those are the rules, as bad as they are and as much as they pervert our system of governing.
“The real question is: what will labor do? If Meek continues to get labor support -- financial and otherwise -- will that not simply signal other Members of Congress that they can do as they please and jump ship on critical labor legislation? I think the answer is obvious.
“The question should be: who does Meek work for? The people? Or the Chamber?”
https://www.editorsguild.com/LaborNews.cfm?LaborNewsid=2393
No comments:
Post a Comment