Teamsters union declines to endorse in presidential election, breaking decades of precedent

Ahead of the decision, the Teamsters shared internal data showing that a majority of members supported Trump over Harris. According to an electronic member poll that was initiated after President Joe Biden withdrew from the race, about 60% of members believed the union should endorse Trump while 34% supported Harris. About 6% said they supported another candidate.


Teamsters won’t endorse in presidential race after releasing internal polling showing most members support Trump


Strange times...

Chesterton said:

The only thing strange is that it wasn't more than 60%.

Click to expand...

It's a toss up.


While democrats (at least in the last 40 years) have been more "friendly" to organized labor, the people I know in my own family who are members who are part of organized labor (I have a teamster in my family, and more than one UAW worker) are more blue collar "salt of the earth" type people who still hold some traditional values on certain subjects.

I think Democrats have started hitting that "tipping point" where their economic policies are overshadowed by some of their social policies, and it's showing in polling results like these.


The "I don't agree with everything they're doing, but they'll fight for the workin' men like me so they've got my support" mentality only goes so far.

While economics is a huge facet of politics, people tend to forget it's not the only facet. There are limits.

There is that threshold some people reach in which they'd rather forego the $1.50/hour raise in favor of restoring what they'd view as social normalcy. I think the the modern day progressives may have found that threshold.

rambot said:

What's strange about that?

Seriously? What have Republicans done for the working man in the last 30 years to earn their vote that hasn't enriched their overlords?
Taking away water breaks. Taking away mandatory hest breaks. Taking away tax credit for tools.

Click to expand...

I suspect (although I haven't seen anything concrete) is that the perceptions were driven, not so much on "what republicans did or didn't do for the working man", but rather more on what democrats did support that indirectly cuts against some truckers' interests.

One can certainly surmise that the covid policies that democrats pushed for certainly didn't make the lives of Truck Drivers any easier.

A percentage of Teamsters driver tankers that deliver gasoline. Democrats pushing for the elimination of gasoline could certainly be concerning for people who haul gasoline. (not saying that's a good reason to not push to move away from fossil fuels...but it's a factor none the less. I'm sure members of the Asbestos workers union weren't happy when their industry got phased out either)

Teamsters represent more than just truck drivers, in some cities, they represent a large number of retail and hospitality workers.


Obviously the Teamsters aren't endorsing the republicans either...but it's not terribly shocking that they're declining to endorse Democrats this time around.

There are other countervailing interests at play besides just money/breaks/OT.

And that doesn't even delve into how some of the social policies can play a role. While some rural and southern Teamsters likely agree with the policies of Democrats on the economic front with regards to workers' rights. That doesn't mean they're going to agree with them on other things.


For instance, pretend you were a unionized widget maker in a widget factory, and I as a candidate am/was very "Pro-widget and pro-widget worker" on economic policy. That's all well and good...but if that's literally only one of the few points of agreement we have, there's going to be a certain threshold of how many other policies I can disagree with you on before you eventually decline to endorse me.

The promise of wages and working conditions support is only guy buy a finite amount of "look the other way on the other stuff" credit.


To use an extremely exaggerated example. If you were unionized...and of the two candidates, Alex Jones was the pro-union candidate fighting to get you a 5/hour raise, and extra PTO and breaks, and the other was a stereotypical corporate politician... would you endorse Alex Jones? Or would you simply decline to make an endorsement that election cycle?

The other aspect I neglected to touch on in my previous post.

What was the left-leaning/democratic-leaning messaging/coverage like with regards to the Trucker Strike up in Canada?
(remember, it's the International Brotherhood of the Teamsters)

Teamsters represents 130,000 of the 300,000 Truck Drivers in Canada.

The do see the profession as a "brotherhood". So when some Teamsters here in the US turn on the nightly news, and see the same pundits praising Democrats, and then bashing the Canadian Truckers, do you think that maybe ruffled a few feathers?

While the Canadian Teamsters president was "lock step" with Trudeau (not a shocker, most labor leaders up there are), things weren't quite as clear cut south of the border among the various chapters.

This is rewinding a few years now, but if you recall, there was quite a fuss from 9 different unions responding to Bill DeBlasio's NYC vaccine mandates and rules. One of which was the local Teamsters Chapter.

Many other states had local chapters that echoed some of the same resistance:


And many other Teamsters chapters either flat out negotiated exemptions, or negotiated rules stating that their members couldn't be forced to receive until it had full approval and was no longer being issued under the EUA.