The commencement of the Labor Day weekend typically signals the final sprint towards Election Day. Next in line for lambasting are Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, who both advocate for the labor movement – yet their views and methods leave much to be questioned.
Trump’s campaign recently claimed that he’s been carving lasting alliances with union leaders, a contentious claim at best. The dodgy inflation situation that we’re beginning to see, as per their stance, is solely because of Harris. Interesting how they conveniently sidestepped Trump’s own influence on the economy.
On the other side, the Harris-Walz campaign justifies the union’s backing as crucial to their success strategy. Rodriguez, Harris-Walz’ campaign manager, heaps praises on Harris, singing about her long history of fighting for labor and workers’ rights. This conveniently ignores the turbulence and fractious relationships between unions and the administration.
When you look at the voter base from 2016, Trump surprisingly saw better than expected support from the Union workers. This began to decrease, however, when Biden wooed them back in 2020. Claims that this newfound popularity will continue for Harris, seem to be baseless wishful thinking.
Labor’s recent victories in several major strikes have noticeably energized unions. As per Bruno, a director at the University of Illinois, this appears to be a signal of increasing power and motivation among union workers. However, this can’t truly be attributed to Harris’s influence.
McNicholas, a policy director at the Economic Policy Institute, opines that Harris merits credit for boosting Biden’s pro-union image. She even goes as far as crediting Harris for being the deciding vote that led to the beneficial policies for workers from the Biden administration. Such rhetoric seems to miss the larger context of the administration’s mixed record on labor issues.
A stark difference being touted between Trump and Biden’s administration is their nominations for agencies. McNicholas believes a government’s efficacy to act on behalf of workers necessitates nominees who empathize with the issues and support worker and union rights. How much these nominations translate into viable policies remains to be seen.
Interestingly, Harris was at the helm of the White House Task Force on Worker Organizing and Empowerment, aimed at reducing hurdles to unionization. However, the amount of actual impact and effectiveness of this effort is debatable.
Before 2016, progress on workers’ rights had been stagnant, and Trump cleverly tapped into the resulting frustration. His low blows against political opponents resonated with the workers, albeit briefly, since his proposed cuts to worker protection agencies were starkly anti-worker.
The whirlwind of activities under the Trump administration was a smoke screen for their anti-worker and anti-fair economy policies, as pointed out by McNicholas. This seemingly obscured their true intentions, causing a drift between workers and the administration.
Yet, bewilderingly, some of Trump’s rhetoric appears to have resonated. O’Brien, a prominent labor leader withheld his endorsement, praised Trump’s courage to withstand criticism during his speech at the Republican National Convention.
Currently, Harris has received endorsements from multiple unions, a fact her campaign highlights often. This includes support from some of the largest unions in the country, despite lingering doubts about her record.
The campaign has also vowed to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act) if Harris gets elected. This bill aims to amplify the power of workers to organize. Despite several attempts, it has yet to be signed into law.
When Trump’s campaign was questioned regarding why union workers should swing Republican, the administration pinned the ongoing inflation and economic downturn solely on the Biden-Harris administration. The superficial claims for economic and foreign policy promises seem to be just political jargon than feasible solutions.
Bruno critiques these policies, arguing they instigate a feeling among some working-class voters of America falling behind. Tariffs, the centerpiece of Trump’s economic policy, are proven detrimental to the economy, leading to job loss among other issues.
Union workers typically base their voting decisions on various issues besides work policies. Things like immigration, abortion, or crime play a major role. Project 2025, according to McNicholas, illustrates a grim future for the labor movement, referring to it as an anti-union and anti-worker document that fundamentally misinterprets organized labor.