There’s no doubt about it: Unions love Scott Lennon.
To date, nine local unions — including those representing our teachers, police, fire and municipal workers — have endorsed Lennon. Someone please correct me if I’m mistaken but I’m not aware of any of the other candidates collecting any local union endorsements.
So what does that mean to you? Do union endorsements help Lennon as much as he hopes they will?
Do union endorsements, in general, and in this specific instance, signal a seal of approval that wins him or her your vote or at least strong consideration? Does it suggest that this is a candidate who will probably get the very best out of our city workers because of how happy they will be to work with him or her?
Or does it do the opposite? Do union endorsements lead you to worry that a candidate may have trouble when it comes to negotiating contracts, budgeting or dealing with layoffs?
On an earlier thread I mentioned that Ruthanne Fuller was the most well organized mayoral candidate I could ever recall in Newton, and I reflected on how quickly she had turned in the signatures for her nomination papers. I continue to be awed by the positive energy she has brought to the campaign.
Equally impressive though, is Scott Lennon basically “running the table” with all of these union endorsements. Do the endorsements mean anything? Hell yeah they do! And they don’t in any way mean that Scott has somehow “sold out” to the unions. I see the endorsements much more as a recognition of Scott’s years of leadership, and confidence in his ability to negotiate fairly on behalf of the City.
But endorsements are just one factor of many to consider when determining who to vote for. Words matter. So a candidate’s message and their ability to deliver on their vision is paramount. That’s why I’m a long way from ruling out the possibility Amy Sangiolo could win this thing. I’m so impressed with the substance of her campaign.
Union endorsements matter a lot. I weigh a lot of factors in how I choose to vote. The opinions of working people and the unions that represent them definitely weigh heavily in my mind. I think they weigh even more heavily on the choices made by their members, especially those members who are not as locally active and may not know as much about the candidates.
I hope nobody in our city thinks of union endorsements as a bad thing. Unions built the middle class in this country, and although they’ve seen steady declines in enrollment, they still remain a powerful force for policies that lift us all up. For example, unions are at the forefront of the fight for $15 / hour, they led the fight to get earned sick time for all workers, and are leading the fight for paid family medical leave.
I just ignore them. Then again, I just ignore most endorsements. There are lots of reasons people or groups make endorsements, and I’m not convinced I can know the true reasons. I’d rather just make up my own mind. There are occasional endorsements that are a negative for me (from certain extremist groups or politicians I despise), but those will just cause me to look hard for evidence about whether the candidate agrees with that group.
If I’d never questioned endorsements before, seeing how many people endorse my LinkedIn profile for skills they have see my work product for would be enough to make me a skeptic!
Like Meredith I ignore them. If anything, I tend to give more consideration to the other candidates to minimize outside influence.
I suspect most of the members aren’t Newton residents and primarily concerned with how much Newton pays them. It’s akin to an out-of-town donation only they’re donating their time rather than just money and then what do they expect in return?
From my observation of union endorsements in the school committee races, the Teachers Union gets it quite wrong. Such endorsements should be ignored.
My take is that they see Scott as a softer touch in contract negotiations. Ruthanne will be balanced and analytic in those talks and the community can expect a sustainable, fair outcome from her, which protects the city from financial misadventure. Same goes for Amy.
The union endorsements are a distraction. Positions on the issues and track record is much more important in evaluating the candidates.
Whether the endorsement by itself influences your vote or not, factors not yet mentioned (in this thread) are pretty significant.
Gaining these endorsements comes with an army of supporters who put up yard signs, make phone calls, attend “visibilities” and hold signs on street-corners, etc. Union halls donate their space, labor and numerous phone bank lines to the candidates they support.
Many conservatives hold an anti-union bias, but since they are a minority group in Newton, it would seem that the positives related to Mr. Lennon’s monopolization of union support outweigh the negatives by a large margin.
Despite a clear understanding of the role the unions played in creating a solid middle class in this country, I was only minimally involved in my union until about 10 years ago. However, as the ravages of income inequality became part of the public conversation, I looked upon unions differently – as a prime example of a progressive movement that has continued to advocate effectively for maintaining a strong middle class for decades. The decline in unions has coincided with the ongoing collapse of the middle class in many parts of this country.
I understand and respect voters who disregard endorsements when deciding on their vote. But if endorsements are important, then the ones that come from those with daily contact with a broad range of city departments and services – the people who work in the trenches to make Newton a great city – should be considered as part of the decision making process. If endorsements from progressive groups that advocate for various causes are important, then no groups are more important than the unions that advocate for the economic security of the people who work for the city.
Geoff Epstein’s statement that unions endorsed Scott Lennon because he would be a “soft touch” in negotiations is totally offensive and disrespectful to the unions, Scott, Ruthanne, and the four other candidates on the ballot. He states that Scott lacks the courage to negotiate contracts that would be fiscally responsible which could not be further from the truth, and implies that Ruthanne lacks the heart to negotiate fair contracts, which is also completely untrue.
Perhaps most importantly, Mr. Epstein either ignores or doesn’t know that four other candidates are on the ballot:
-Amy Sangiolo, a city councilor for about 20 years
-Eli Katzoff, who initiated the inspirational video of the seven candidates standing against the hatred that occurred in Charlottesville last weekend
-Al Cecchinelli, who represents the Republican Party
-Richard Saunders
-Geoffrey Woodward
These people took a risk in running for public office and put in the time and effort to get their names on the ballot. We should respect their efforts and commitment to the city.
Oh dear, Jane. Such confusion.
My comments were very supportive of both Ruthanne and Amy, contrary to what you argue. I did not ignore Amy at all. Please, read what I write!
I made no statement about courage/Scott. Total invention.
How one can write such incorrect material is beyond me.
It is clear that Scott, Ruthanne and Amy are the major contenders in the mayoral race, so I just confined my comments to them. No affront to the other contenders.
Further, the argument that strong unions imply a strong middle class is totally misleading. The collapse of manufacturing is a principal reason that unions collapsed.
The principal problem with the teachers’ unions is that they appear to be focused on compensation packages rather than student achievement which should be a major focus of their operations.
Geoff – I seriously questioned whether to respond to your comments- the derisive tone that women are so used to accepting as well as the misinformation. But at the end of the day, I decided to give it one more try.
A number of movements in the history of our country have transformed life for ordinary Americans to historic proportions: the abolitionist movement, the sufferage movement, and obviously the civil rights movement in its many iterations that continues to this day. The long history of the union movement in this country stands proudly amongst these as one that fights for the rights of workers for decent wages and working conditions.
Specifically, teachers unions have, in concert with other movements, transformed a predominately female profession from one that lacked basic rights, adequate compensation, and poor working conditions to one that provides a living wage and addresses poor working conditions. It need not be said but I will anyway, these conditions were and are poor learning conditions for children as well. To say that teachers unions don’t fight for the well-being of children as part of its work as well as the staff is terribly inaccurate. Unions work to make schools safe and healthy places for children.
The influence of teachers unions began in the mid to late 60’s and coincided naturally with the women’s movement. The improvements in basic rights and working conditions happened at lightening speed through the 70’s. In 1968, my sister was forced to leave her teaching position when the administration learned she was 3 months pregnant. This was 1968 in White Plains, NY – a city just half an hour outside of NYC! Just 13 years later in 1982, I went into labor a week after my due date while teaching a math lesson. I had the complete support of the union to return to my previous position after my maternity leave which was in the best interest of everyone involved – including the students.
Unfortunately, the collaborative (though often difficult) work that improves the health and well being of students that the union, the school system, and school committee engage in is an untold story. That’s a shame, but your comments that the teachers and staff who are the sole members of the teachers association don’t care about the welfare of the students is completely inaccurate.
No derision was intended and no misinformation was conveyed.
In the teachers union meetings and negotiations I had access to when on the SC, student achievement was never mentioned, only other things. Student issues just don’t figure in the exchanges. That’s a lost opportunity. Should be worked on.
The real bottom line is that Newton is faced with two major threats: the $700 million+ OPEB liability and a YES vote on the charter.
Ruthanne Fuller has been front and center on the OPEB liability and is the one most aware of the threat and the solutions. That translates into forging contracts with the unions which make sure the planning to retire the OPEB liability is kept on track. That really was my principal point.
Any candidate endorsed by unions carries that history into union negotations.
So in summary, I think that Ruthanne and Amy both would operate more freely in contract negotiations than Scott.
Let me throw out a comparison of Bryan’s Progressive Newton organization and the Teachers’ Union. Both organizations send questionnaires to candidates running for office. Bryan noted that his organization will make the candidates’ answers to the questions available to the public. In doing so, his organization is providing a public service.
The Teachers’ Union is very different. During the last election, I asked the Teacher’s Union if I could read the candidates’ answers to the Union’s questions. I was told “no.” Their policy is to only allow internal access.
This left me scratching me head. If the teachers’ union wants their endorsement to carry weight with voters, shouldn’t they be transparent like Bryan? The idea of a “private” questionnaire creates the specter of politicians giving the union a private answer and the voters a different answer.
Can the Teachers’ Union do whatever they want? Yes, as long as their members are OK with it. (Jane, are you OK with it?) But, I am skeptical of endorsements where the the organization deliberately obfuscates candidates’ stated positions on something as important as local education.
@Jeffrey: For the record, Progressive Newton isn’t my organization. It’s the local chapter of Progressive Massachusetts, a statewide grassroots progressive organization with thousands of members.
http://www.progressivemass.com/
@Bryan: Has Progressive Newton posted the candidates’ answers to its survey yet? I’m anxious to find out why people are poor.
I am not endorsing anyone in this Mayoral race, but I think the relevant question for Newton voters to ask is: “If elected Mayor, how will you work with the public employees’ unions to negotiate collective bargaining agreements that are fair to employees as well as fiscally sustainable for the city?”
Well said, Ted.
@Ted. My position as well, but you state it more succinctly than I am prone to do.
Bob, as I transition from politician to pundit, I am learning that brevity is the sole of wit.
Geoff, you used classic man to woman condescension when you said, “Oh dear, Jane. Such confusion.”
Jane, while I basically agree with you about unions, I don’t know where you read many of the words you credit Geoff as saying, such as: He is offensive toward and disrespects the other candidates and implies that Ruthanne lacks the heart to negotiate fair contracts. Doesn’t help your your credibility on this issue when you claim things that are untrue.
No endorsements have much influence on my vote.
OK, Marti, when, as you say, Jane ascribes to me very negative opinions I have not stated, how should I frame the response?
“Oh dear, Jane. Such confusion.”
was meant to convey my upset at such wildly incorrect atttributions.
What would be a better way to say it? I shall take your advice on this to heart, as I had no intention of being a classic male condescender. Anyone who knows me would appreciate that.
@Greg: Not yet, I’ll make sure to post to V14 when we do. I think people are going to be really impressed with how thoughtful and impressive the answers are from many of our candidates.
Agree with Ted 100%. And no endorsement means much to me. Union endorsements mean zero to me, not positive or negative. I assume they have their reasons, but since I’m not in the union, I don’t see how it should impact my vote.
I’m eager to listen to my neighbors views, since those that have picked a candidate have clear reasons, and I like to listen to those reasons. But again, I’ll make up my own mind.
It is a tough call. Looking forward to hearing directly from the candidates on the issues.
The unions also endorsed Mayor Warren and he has not given away the store by any means. The city unions ask for fair contracts that are fiscally responsible for the city and a healthy work environment.
We have multiple municipal unions in the city and we are fully aware that if one union receives an overly generous contract then our colleagues in another union will suffer.