The aftermath of Donald Trump’s electoral triumph hints at a plethora of consequences for various unions that have gambled on Kamala Harris’ presidential destiny. In essence, the public-sector, service industry, and industrial unions have staked their future on a Harris presidency and now face potential repercussions of varied degrees. From pushing for her presidential campaign to financial contributions, these unions went all-in, creating a high-stakes game.
One considerable threat is poised towards public-sector unions, who represent government workers. The new administration under Trump harbors a radical aspiration to obliterate these unions. This looming peril is profoundly existential and institutional, bearing the potential to significantly alter the landscape for government workers’ representation.
Meanwhile, service industry unions who vouch for vulnerable, low-wage earner hotel and restaurant workers, predominantly immigrants, find their members’ very existence at stake. Trump’s infamous promise of extensive deportations renders these lives in precarious uncertainty.
Then there’s the old-guard industrial unions, unraveling a pressing crisis within. The predicament stems from a profound split- wherein their leadership rooted for Harris, yet the member base turned in favor of her adversary, Trump. This fracture emerges as a prominent manifestation of the constantly evolving political terrain within these unions.
Despite the robust union support, financial or otherwise, with approximately $43 million spent on Harris’s campaign, Trump’s victory indicated a clear mismatch between union leadership and their members’ desires. Regardless of their assertions that they had indeed done their job, the election outcome indicated a jarring divergence.
Alternative union households favored Harris over Trump with a 55 to 43 percent gap, similar to Biden’s edge in 2020. These households were prospective kingmakers in the narrowly won Democratic Senate races in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada, and potentially in the yet undecided Arizona’s Senate race.
A critical examination will reveal that the Democrats’ late acknowledgments and poor communication regarding inflation pained their cause. Any merit the Biden administration may have had in facilitating infrastructure jobs, reviving manufacturing, or bringing back semiconductor production offshore, unfortunately, were lost due to their communication failure, potentially to be capitalized on by Trump.
Trump’s first term saw his administration being avid opponents of unions. With appointments to the National Labor Relations Board who strictly opposed organizing and union-favored rules for worker-elected collective bargaining, Trump’s disdain for unions was evident.
Another substantial blow to Harris’s campaign and consequently, the unions, was their own ranks’ refusal to endorse her, primarily driven by deep-rooted support for Trump. The notable discord came from the Teamsters, a noteworthy defection which underscores the growing schism within unions on political allegiance patterns.
The International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Longshoremen’s Association, and the United Mine Workers chose to abstain from election endorsement altogether, indicating a widespread internal disagreement on the endorsed candidate choice and hinting at a broader, more complex conflict within these unions.
The danger conceivably poses itself to unions representing government employees. The initiated Project 2025, a Trump administration’s endeavor, advocates for a complete annihilation of these unions. An existential threat such as this is not to be taken lightly and now looms on the horizon.
Interestingly, many of the rank-and-file members, such as Brian Ursua, a Teamsters Local 631 member and Trump loyalist from North Las Vegas, are less concerned about these imminent threats. Rather they are more focused on the tangible benefits like the promise to eliminate taxation on overtime pay, a highly appealing prospect to union members like Ursua.
Union leaders, however, display a less sunny disposition, particularly with threats to the Biden administration’s recent ruling that sought to expand mandatory overtime pay. Set to begin from the 1st of January, the ruling was posed to affect workers earning equivalent to $58,656 annually, increasing the threshold from the previous $43,888.
However, the ripple of consternation has spread amidst union leaders as Trump’s advisory team has hinted at reversing this rule. Given the potential implications, the proposed rollback amplifies the uncertainty for these hardworking union members and their leaders amid an already trailblazing political climate.
In conclusion, Trump’s victory conveys an array of consequences for unions that had heavily bet on a Harris’ presidency. The imminent threats to these unions are existential and tangible, potentially reshaping various facets of their existence and further igniting ongoing internal conflicts. This scenario underlines the profound consequences of political leanings within these unions and the unpredictable, ever-evolving nature of modern politics.