Latest news with #BigLabor
New York Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Cuomo's election loss reveals onetime kingmaker NYC unions now toothless ‘paper tigers'
The biggest loser in the Democratic primary race for mayor besides Andrew Cuomo is New York's weakened labor movement. Cuomo's Big Labor muscles were exposed as nothing but 'paper tigers' without bite, according to longtime political strategists and even people active in the union movement. 'Clearly, the support of some of the largest NYC unions for Cuomo, which he very prominently showcased in the debates and elsewhere, did not do much for the former governor (nor for the unions themselves),' Johsua Freeman, a labor historian and professor at the CUNY Graduate Center, wrote to The Post. Advertisement 9 Andrew Cuomo's Big Labor muscles were exposed as nothing but 'paper tigers' without bite. Getty Images 'Also, the membership in some unions is less mobilized and engaged in political action than in earlier years. 'In some respects, the impressive DSA field operation has moved into the void,' Freeman said, referring to the Democratic Socialists of America party that includes primary-race winner Zohran Mamdani. Advertisement Mamdani and his army of thousands of passionate volunteers — including many DSA members — outworked the network of unions that Cuomo relied upon to get out the vote. 9 'The membership in some unions is less mobilized and engaged in political action than in earlier years,' Freeman said. Erik Pendzich/Shutterstock It turned out Mamdani didn't need the unions, and it's clear from the results that at least some rank-and-file union members defied their leadership and voted for the two-term Queens state assemblyman — just as many union households voted for Republican President Trump last year. The city's 8-1 matching funds for small donations also make candidates less reliant on union cash, Freeman noted, while others pointed to large funding from 'independent' Super PACs backing candidates as making labor unions less relevant. Advertisement 'The unions were paper tigers,' a veteran labor associate said. 'Their get-out-the-vote operations are diminished. They've been living off past success.' 9 Mamdani and his army of thousands of passionate volunteers outworked the network of unions that Cuomo relied upon to get out the vote. Getty Images Cuomo was endorsed by the heart of Big Labor — Service Employees International Union Local 1199 representing health care workers, Local 32 BJ for building workers, the Hotel Trades and Gaming Council, the firefighter unions, Teamsters Local 237 and the entire network of the hardhat construction trade unions. 'Big Labor endorsed Cuomo but did not seem particularly enthusiastic about him, certainly compared to Mamdani's supporters' enthusiasm level,' said CUNY political science professor John Mollenkopf. Advertisement 'They also did not seem to mount a particularly strong canvassing and GOTV [Get Out The Vote], which they are capable of doing under the right circumstances,' he said of the unions. 9 The city's 8-1 matching funds for small donations also make candidates less reliant on union cash, Freeman noted. Erik Pendzich/Shutterstock Meanwhile, Big Labor's membership rolls are shrinking. Union membership in New York City has fallen in recent years: In 2024, only about 20% of all wage and salary workers in the city were union members, down from around nearly one quarter a decade ago. Another challenge in terms of GOTV efforts is the fact that many more union members don't reside in the city as they did decades ago — particularly in the construction trades, among uniformed officers and even in the unions with lower-paid workers, sources said. 9 In 2024, only about 20% of all wage and salary workers in the city were union members, down from around nearly one quarter a decade ago. New York Post 'If you have less and less members and more and more of them live outside New York City, their ability to mobilize large groups of their members has dramatically cratered and shows no sign of slowing down,' a veteran labor insider said. Former Gov. David Paterson, a Cuomo supporter, said, 'The unions don't work like they did years ago for a candidate. Advertisement 'There was not a lot of street activity.' 9 Many more union members don't reside in the city as they did decades ago — particularly in the construction trades. AFP via Getty Images It wasn't just Cuomo who was hurt by the unions' dwindling influence. District Council 37, the union representing the largest number of city municipal workers, backed losing Council Speaker Adrienne Adams for mayor, though they ranked Mamdani second. Advertisement The United Federation of Teachers, whose membership was divided, sat out the race. 9 Former Gov. David Paterson, a Cuomo supporter, said, 'The unions don't work like they did years ago for a candidate.' AP Transport Workers Union President John Samuelsen — who appeared at a pro-Mamdani campaign rally touting the candidate's free-bus-fare plan days before the primary — said many labor leaders, along with the city Democratic Party establishment, made a calculated decision that Cuomo would win. 'The Democratic Party establishment got demolished,' Samuelsen said. Advertisement Unions that backed Cuomo or were neutral in the primary are now shifting to Mamdani while others are considering backing incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who is running for re-election as an independent. 9 'The Democratic Party establishment got demolished,' Samuelsen said. Getty Images Local 32 BJ, the Hotel Trades and Gaming Council and the state Nurses' Association have already joined Mamdani. Some labor sources whose unions backed Cuomo took issue with criticism that they didn't work hard and instead blamed the candidate for running a lackluster campaign. Advertisement 'You need a general in charge to win,' a pro-Cuomo union insider said. 'You can't win with a ghost.' 9 'You need a general in charge to win,' a pro-Cuomo union insider said. 'You can't win with a ghost.' Erik Pendzich/Shutterstock Austin Shafran, a spokesman for HTC and 32 BJ, said unions assist but don't run a candidate's campaign. 'The best unions provide high-quality, supplemental support that help push good campaigns over the finish line. But core field infrastructure for citywide campaigns needs to be owned by campaigns themselves,' he said. He said the unions did a good job in pulling out the Cuomo vote in The Bronx and southeast Queens, areas they focused on and where the ex-governor performed well. .
Los Angeles Times
18-06-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
So regulators can just make rules by gut instinct now?
If you think federal regulators care about data-driven, evidence-based policymaking, a case currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit will leave you scratching your head. The case involves a terrible Biden administration regulation driven by Big Labor. In defending this regulation, which mandates that crews on freight trains include at least two people, attorneys for the U.S. Department of Transportation leaned heavily not on data or evidence, but on 'common sense.' This, of course, is about a lot more than trains. It's a microcosm of a much larger issue. Emotion-based regulation is a destructive way to regulate the complex and dynamic U.S. economy — unless you happen to favor the lesser freedom and dynamism found on the European continent. In the case of this U.S. rule, the government admits that it has no actual evidence that two-person crews are safer than one-person crews. Instead, the agency has asked the court to defer to what it calls a 'common sense product of reasoned decision-making.' This language might sound like harmless bureaucratic boilerplate. It's anything but. It represents a dangerous precedent — one by which agencies can sidestep their legal responsibility to document actual market failures that necessitate regulation, to present cost-benefit analyses or even just to show substantive safety concerns. You might agree that two is better than one, but if 'common sense' is the new legal standard, then anything goes. What's next? Regulating package-delivery drones because 'it feels safer' to keep humans on some kind of joystick? Requiring every grocery store to have cashiers at every checkout lane — even if 90% of customers use self-checkout — because 'it feels more secure' to see someone behind the counter? Safety and security are obviously important. That's exactly why we should demand real evidence. The government's own data don't support the notion that mandating two-person crews would improve safety. My former colleague Patrick McLaughlin showed that there is no reliable, conclusive data to document that one-person crews have worse safety records than two-person crews. Many smaller U.S. railroads have long operated safely with single-person crews, as do the Amtrak trains that haul Washington's elite up and down the East Coast. We also have a wealth of data from Europe and other nations where single crew members operate. Then there are the issues of trade-offs. Importantly, requiring an additional crew member increases labor costs, which could divert funds away from critical areas such as track and equipment maintenance or safety-enhancing innovations (automation, accident-prevention systems, etc.). In fact, historically, safety improvements in rail have been driven more by infrastructure investment and innovation, not crew size. As it turns out, railroads have invested billions in automation and safety technology to reduce the risk of human error, which is the leading cause of rail accidents and can contribute to disasters like the 2023 wreck in East Palestine, Ohio, which continues to cast a pall over the industry. So why the push to keep such a rule now? The answer, unfortunately but unsurprisingly, is politics. This mandate has been a longstanding wish-list item for Big Labor. More crew members means more union dues. For elected officials, it means more campaign endorsements. For the rest of us, it means higher costs and more stuff moving over highways on trucks, which will increase traffic fatalities. The broader question raised by this case is whether federal rulemaking has abandoned the core principles of the U.S. system. Historically, agencies were expected to demonstrate a compelling need for regulation backed by real-world data. Now, it seems, the burden is being flipped: Unless the regulated party can prove the rule is unnecessary, the rule stands. In this European-style approach to regulation, which I am familiar with, the default control lies in the hands of bureaucrats who are simply presumed to know best. This is what the U.S. system was designed to avoid. This trend isn't just visible in rail policy. Across sectors, federal agencies are using vague justifications and broad interpretations of statutory authority to impose sweeping mandates — often with little concern for how they affect innovation, private investment or the broader economy. Courts, unless they push back firmly, risk becoming rubber stamps for regulatory overreach. If the 11th Circuit upholds this rule on the grounds of 'common sense,' the consequences could be far-reaching. It would effectively tell every agency not to worry about assembling an evidence-based record or conducting rigorous cost-benefit analyses. Just appeal to intuition and call it a day. That outcome would be one that offends genuine common sense. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.
