Inside Look: Questionable Decisions by Teamsters’ Leadership – What Were They Thinking?

Why should anyone care about a labor union’s presidential endorsement? There are a few reasons. Ideologically, if a union is functioning democratically, an endorsement allows a politician to assert the legitimate support of a large group of hardworking Americans, a much-coveted demographic. Politically, an endorsement from a reputable union also provides financial support for the candidate and a team of union members ready to campaign on their behalf. Practically, an endorsement enables a union to bolster its own agenda by aligning itself with a potential future leader. The politician fights for the union’s needs, the union supports the politician, and the cycle continues.

The Teamsters’ decision this week not to endorse any candidate for U.S. president is significant because it fails to benefit from any of these advantages.

To be fair, not every large union in America is a model of political virtue. Many, if not most, have a rather undemocratic endorsement process, controlled by a small group of leaders rather than a genuine vote of the membership. This can lead to internal conflicts, as we saw in 2020 when many local unions that supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) publicly criticized their parent unions’ endorsement of President Joe Biden. The Teamsters deserve some credit for releasing “member polling” data showing that Biden was their preferred candidate earlier this summer, but that Trump gained the lead after Vice President Kamala Harris entered the race. However, the credibility of this democratic process is undermined by the fact that no methodology was disclosed. The American Prospect reported that the eight Teamster members who attended Kamala Harris’ meeting with the union subsequently said they supported her, even though the General Board voted 14-3 for no endorsement.

A true union leader, tuned into the stakes of this election, must be bold and tell his members: “If Trump is elected, unions, the working class, women, and your immigrant brothers and sisters are going to be severely impacted in the following ways.”

There are clear signs that Teamsters president Sean O’Brien has a fondness for former President Donald Trump. He has posed for photos with Trump at Teamsters headquarters, had a private meeting with Trump at Mar-a-Lago, donated $45,000 to the Republican National Committee and gave a prime time speech at the Republican National Convention. These actions have fueled the Republican party’s misleading attempt to portray themselves as the “working class” party.

O’Brien’s relationship with Trump seems marked by a lack of sincerity. He claims to be open to both political parties and says that the union’s endorsement process is fair and transparent. This might seem plausible if you’re unfamiliar with the realities of American politics. Want to have all candidates come to your union headquarters to answer questions? That’s fine, but it doesn’t mean you need to pose for a publicity photo that will be used in misleading political propaganda. Want to keep communication open with both parties? That’s completely different from giving a prime time speech at a party convention, which is meant to help one candidate get elected. Pretending it’s possible to speak at the RNC while remaining unbiased is like sitting in a smoke-filled car and claiming you’re not partaking in the activity. Are you aware of where you are?

Want to collaborate with both sides of the aisle on your union’s political priorities? That’s commendable. Judge politicians not on their party affiliation, but on what they actually do for workers. So, here’s a rundown of the two sides in the upcoming election: One side gave you $36 billion to save your pensions, the other opposed it. One side appointed the most pro-union general counsel ever to lead the NLRB, the other will fire her and appoint right-wing judges who will deem the NLRB unconstitutional. One side will try to pass the PRO Act to improve America’s labor laws, the other will oppose it and support all legal and regulatory measures to weaken your union and make it harder to organize new workers.

Decisions, decisions.

The most likely explanation for the Teamsters’ strange endorsement debacle is this: The union’s membership includes many Trump supporters, O’Brien himself may find Trump appealing, and before Biden dropped out of the race, it seemed like Trump was going to win. This mix of factors may have persuaded O’Brien that endorsing Trump could be beneficial, allowing him to accumulate power as the only major union leader that Trump favored. O’Brien could then use this favorable relationship to protect the Teamsters from potential Republican policies and establish himself as labor’s most influential political figure.

This plan has several flaws. First, Biden dropping out has reshaped the entire race, making the Democrats the more likely victors. However, by this time, O’Brien had already alienated the Democrats with his RNC speech and refusal to endorse, leading to his exclusion from the DNC. As soon as the Teamsters announced their decision not to endorse anyone, Teamsters locals, councils, and caucuses nationwide quickly announced their own endorsements of the Harris-Walz ticket. These endorsements accumulated so rapidly that the Harris campaign was able to issue a press release stating that they represent 1 million Teamsters, the vast majority of the union’s total membership. (The Trump campaign issued their own press release boasting about the non-endorsement, showing the full range of political ineffectiveness.)

Now, Sean O’Brien has upset the Democratic Party, the Harris campaign, the rest of the labor movement, his union allies, and the most politically savvy segment of his own membership. His actions have sparked an internal opposition campaign for his re-election. If the Democrats win, he will have to try to mend all these damaged relationships. And, to top it off, if the Republicans win, organized labor is in trouble anyway! Being Trump’s buddy won’t protect you from the abolishment of the NLRB and a return to a pre-New Deal stance against all forms of union power.

Well done, sir. Astute maneuvering.

I don’t want to conclude on such a sarcastic note. Let’s assume that O’Brien acted in good faith—that he truly believed his members did not favor one side over the other. It would be a step forward for union democracy if every major union had a set internal process for members to vote on presidential endorsements every four years, and adhered to their decision. However, such a democratic process does not eliminate the need for leadership. A true union leader, aware of the stakes of this election, must tell his members: “If Trump is elected, unions, the working class, women, and your immigrant brothers and sisters are going to be severely impacted in the following ways.” The Teamsters’ process did not unfold this way. Perhaps we can all do better in the next election, assuming democracy still exists.