Trump Labor pick surprises unions, rattles business

[ThatRobGuy]

https://thehill.com/business/5012478-trump-labor-secretary-chavez-deremer/?tbref=hp

President-elect Trump’s pick for Labor secretary has organized labor cheering and business groups sounding worried as the atypically labor-friendly choice could signal a new and more receptive stance toward unions from Republicans, who have long resisted labor’s agenda.

Following a recent increase in popularity among unions and the precedent-breaking appearance of Teamsters President Sean O’Brien at the Republican National Convention in July, the choice of Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.) reflects the growing political importance of labor after an election in which working-class voters delivered a strong turnout for Trump and the GOP.


Chavez-DeRemer, who lost her own reelection bid in November in Oregon’s 5th Congressional District, is one of only three Republicans in Congress who backed the PRO Act, the wide-ranging labor law that would rein in the so-called gig economy and boost workers’ organizing rights.



Another interesting pick that seems to have some talking points that resonate with the "everyday people" and middle class.

 

[rambot]

As I've said before, if Trump can help union members in measurable ways, Democrats will be in trouble because they had some GREAT opportunities to do so and they did not.

I just have a hard time believing he's going to do that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

As I've said before, if Trump can help union members in measurable ways, Democrats will be in trouble because they had some GREAT opportunities to do so and they did not.

I just have a hard time believing he's going to do that.

It's interesting because this appears to be a case where he didn't pick a loyalist.


One of only six GOP members that signed the pledge to respect the election results (we can all imagine how well those sorts of things would've been received at Trump-HQ...not well likely), co-sponsored legislation with Jeffries for drug reform, co-sponsored legislation to increase bargaining power of public sector unions and was one of only 3 republicans that backed the PRO-act.


Thus far, she seems to get good reviews/ratings from the UAW, NEA, Teamsters, and SEIU as the leaders of each organization expressed pleasant surprise at her nomination.

The thing about wildcards (especially wildcards with narcissistic tendencies), flattery tends to go a long way. The UAW leader showing up at the RNC and playing "chummy" may have been part of the impetus for this selection.


And as much as the "Tariff-talk" has been used almost exclusively as a point of ridicule for some of Trump's plans, there are ways in which Tariffs can benefit organized labor in both the automotive and manufacturing sectors.

Trump’s Most Misunderstood Policy Proposal

Economists aren’t telling the whole truth about tariffs.

www.theatlantic.com

Prior to Trump, AFL-CIO was still touting tariffs as a good tool to fix imbalances and help organized labor in the US.

When congress was debating in the past, pre-Trump, AFL-CIO released the following:

Members in Congress have—unfortunately—joined the chorus of CEOs and pundits trying to scare Americans with talk of a “trade war.” The use of this inflammatory rhetoric is an attempt to delegitimize trade enforcement via tariffs and maintain the status quo, which enriches outsourcers and those who exploit workers while driving down our wages and devastating our industrial base. It also ignores the very real harm unfair trade has had on millions of Americans. We urge members of Congress to put support for workers ahead of partisan politics and oppose misguided efforts that would undercut the U.S.’s ability to impose trade remedies and combat harmful trade practices.

Given the devastating impact on America’s manufacturing workers, the AFL-CIO welcomes the long overdue effort toward challenging unfair trade practices, including those of China, through trade enforcement actions.


The AFL-CIO was basically implying that any "scare talk" about tariffs (like a bunch of people are doing now) was basically "conservative corporate shill" rhetoric used to manipulate people into keeping the status quo.


Even last year (before the Trump tariff talk hit full pitch), the UAW was urging Biden to raise tariffs.

So clearly some of the "players" in the realm of organized labor may not be sold on the mindset of "this thing we used to say was good, we now have to pretend is bad, because Trump said it"


Perhaps they're appealing to that old saying "Don't pretend to hate the truth because you don't like the person telling it", or maybe, in their eyes, with regards to these tariffs, they see this as the "twice a day" moment where "the broken clock is right"

 

[BCP1928]

As I've said before, if Trump can help union members in measurable ways, Democrats will be in trouble because they had some GREAT opportunities to do so and they did not.

I just have a hard time believing he's going to do that.

He might do just that. I don't believe he was ever personally devoted to the culture war issues that motivate his "base" and he may be moving towards a stance which unites the working class behind him. I believe he would sell out the Christian culture warriors in a heartbeat to gain a broader coalition.

 

[rambot]

He might do just that. I don't believe he was ever personally devoted to the culture war issues that motivate his "base" and he may be moving towards a stance which unites the working class behind him. I believe he would sell out the Christian culture warriors in a heartbeat to gain a broader coalition.

I have nO doubt he's capable of that and would if it was politically expedient (that said, by this point, I'm not convinced the Christian Culture Warriors would shift their allegiance from Trump for anything).

But I have a hard time believing he's going to do ANYTHING that will threaten the wealth centralization into the 1% and strengthening unions does that.

 

[BCP1928]

I have nO doubt he's capable of that and would if it was politically expedient (that said, by this point, I'm not convinced the Christian Culture Warriors would shift their allegiance from Trump for anything).

But I have a hard time believing he's going to do ANYTHING that will threaten the wealth centralization into the 1% and strengthening unions does that.

His labor pick may just be a token, but he has to do something or he risks losing the swing labor vote in the 2026 elections. There is no doubt that raising the GINI coefficient is still the prime directive.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

He might do just that. I don't believe he was ever personally devoted to the culture war issues that motivate his "base" and he may be moving towards a stance which unites the working class behind him. I believe he would sell out the Christian culture warriors in a heartbeat to gain a broader coalition.

I never really understood why the "moral majority"/"religious right" cohort was every really that keen on him in the first place.

A former casino owner, who uses foul language, ran swimsuit pageants, been married multiple times (and cheated on all of them), and owned a liquor brand.

I remember growing up in a Southern Baptist Church where anyone of those things individually would you get you kicked right out of the church.


My best guess is that he's the only one who didn't talk down to them and treat them as "less than" or give off a vibe of "you rural Christian religious types go sit at the kids table while we college-educated secularists adults talk" (while seemingly not doing the same to every other religion)

The problem the democrats have (with the perception of being elitist) is that they tend to forget that the blue collar folks (who they claim to advocate for the economic interests of) disproportionately fall within that cohort.

And I've mentioned this before, but the "we need to use tax dollars to forgive these college loans" was basically a slap in the face to a lot of blue-collar workers. (and to those of us who actually got a degree in something useful and actually paid off our own loans)

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But I have a hard time believing he's going to do ANYTHING that will threaten the wealth centralization into the 1% and strengthening unions does that.

Someone being wealthy themselves doesn't necessarily preclude themselves from fancying themselves a "populist warrior" and believing their own BS.

You look at almost all of the well-known collectivist heads of states over the past 100 years, they were all rich guys that lived lavishly, but who fancied themselves "a knight in shining armor for the workers" simply due to the fact that they implemented policies for other people that resonated with collectivist populists.

Case in point, Fidel Castro. Grew up in a family that owned a lucrative sugar plantation, and had yachts and mansions. Yet, that didn't stop him from thinking that he was (and having people perceive him as) a "revolutionary for the workers".

 

[BCP1928]

Someone being wealthy themselves doesn't necessarily preclude themselves from fancying themselves a "populist warrior" and believing their own BS.

You look at almost all of the well-known collectivist heads of states over the past 100 years, they were all rich guys that lived lavishly, but who fancied themselves "a knight in shining armor for the workers" simply due to the fact that they implemented policies for other people that resonated with collectivist populists.

Case in point, Fidel Castro. Grew up in a family that owned a lucrative sugar plantation, and had yachts and mansions. Yet, that didn't stop him from that he was (and having people perceive him as) a "revolutionary for the workers".

Definitely the pattern. Did you ever read any Eric Hoffer?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Definitely the pattern. Did you ever read any Eric Hoffer?

Only bits and pieces of "The True Believer" back in my 2nd year of college.

Though, from what I remember, I don't know if I necessarily agreed with his assessments of "mass movements".

While some can certainly be formed via disenfranchised people who are just looking for something/anything to be radically changed (on the basis of "the norm isn't working for me"), I think there are just as many who fight and form movements around keeping the status quo.

If you look at Islamic cultures, there are mass efforts (involving people both rich and poor) centered around enforcing traditional status quos.


Same could be said about certain movements here in the US within the "culture war", you have just as many people (from all walks of life, some doing well, some not) rallying specifically against what they see as "radical change"

 

[BCP1928]

Only bits and pieces of "The True Believer" back in my 2nd year of college.

Though, from what I remember, I don't know if I necessarily agreed with his assessments of "mass movements".

While some can certainly be formed via disenfranchised people who are just looking for something/anything to be radically changed (on the basis of "the norm isn't working for me"), I think there are just as many who fight and form movements around keeping the status quo.

If you look at Islamic cultures, there are mass efforts (involving people both rich and poor) centered around enforcing traditional status quos.


Same could be said about certain movements here in the US within the "culture war", you have just as many people (from all walks of life, some doing well, some not) rallying specifically against what they see as "radical change"

Radical change making them into "deplorables."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Radical change making them into "deplorables."

That solitary "deplorables" comment (when made by Hillary), along with its predecessor, the "bitter clingers" comment, made by Obama, probably did do a lot of damage to the Democratic party in terms of middle-America appeal.

Foisting massive changes (based on decisions they felt had no buy-in on) on people in a relatively short time period has never been a hugely successful formula, condescending at their concerns/resistance would tend to exacerbate that discontent even more.


Sort of like if a husband comes home after having bought a new sports car without even talking to his wife about the purchase decision.

When she gets understandably angry...
"you're getting too emotional about this" is strike one
"You just need to calm down" is strike two
"You're being crazy, Jerry's wife (who he knows she doesn't like a whole lot) didn't say anything when he bought one, why can't you just be more like her???" ...better start practicing the frying pan dodging skills.


That's basically what happened with some of the culture war issues when you think about it.

"here's these radically different things...you're going to have to go along with it even if you don't like it, because we're prioritizing the opinions of the people who you find to be the most annoying and pretentious...and if you don't gleefully go along with it, that makes you deplorable and we're going to portray it solely as a YOU problem"

That's not a great way to talk to half of the country if one wants to win elections.

...and as I referenced before, the fact that those types of criticisms didn't seem to be doled out evenly, and were doled out more along the lines of "the groups the college kids say its okay to rip on" didn't help either I would suspect.

The fact that US president can make the comment along the lines of
"they're bitter... clinging to their Bibles, their AR-15's and their xenophobia..."

swap a few words and say
"they're bitter... clinging to their Qurans, their AK-47's and their antisemitism..."

...A high-profile democrat wouldn't be caught dead saying that in a public forum.

 

[BCP1928]

That solitary "deplorables" comment (when made by Hillary), along with its predecessor, the "bitter clingers" comment, made by Obama, probably did do a lot of damage to the Democratic party in terms of middle-America appeal.

Foisting massive changes (based on decisions they felt had no buy-in on) on people in a relatively short time period has never been a hugely successful formula, condescending at their concerns/resistance would tend to exacerbate that discontent even more.


Sort of like if a husband comes home after having bought a new sports car without even talking to his wife about the purchase decision.

When she gets understandably angry...
"you're getting too emotional about this" is strike one
"You just need to calm down" is strike two
"You're being crazy, Jerry's wife (who he knows she doesn't like a whole lot) didn't say anything when he bought one, why can't you just be more like her???" ...better start practicing the frying pan dodging skills.


That's basically what happened with some of the culture war issues when you think about it.

"here's these radically different things...you're going to have to go along with it even if you don't like it, because we're prioritizing the opinions of the people who you find to be the most annoying and pretentious...and if you don't gleefully go along with it, that makes you deplorable and we're going to portray it solely as a YOU problem"

That's not a great way to talk to half of the country if one wants to win elections.

...and as I referenced before, the fact that those types of criticisms didn't seem to be doled out evenly, and were doled out more along the lines of "the groups the college kids say its okay to rip on" didn't help either I would suspect.

The fact that US president can make the comment along the lines of
"they're bitter... clinging to their Bibles, their AR-15's and their xenophobia..."

swap a few words and say
"they're bitter... clinging to their Qurans, their AK-47's and their antisemitism..."

...A high-profile democrat wouldn't be caught dead saying that in a public forum.

That's the thing. The Democrats eren't paying enough attention to real people. I live in a red state surrounded by conservative Evangelicals and know better. but if all I knew about conservative Christians was what I see in this forum or in the media generally I might well be inclined to stereotype them as, well, Marjorie Taylor Greene, anybody?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's the thing. The Democrats eren't paying enough attention to real people. I live in a red state surrounded by conservative Evangelicals and know better. but if all I knew about conservative Christians was what I see in this forum or in the media generally I might well be inclined to stereotype them as, well, Marjorie Taylor Greene, anybody?

That dovetails into what I've mentioned before, which is that having only two parties isn't adequate for a nation of our size.

Especially when you look at the regional components and how that ties in with social and economic attitudes.

When you look at different regions of the country, you see some pretty interesting overlaps and combinations of some of the social & economic policies.

Obviously, a New England Republican is quite different on some issues than a Southern Republican, much like a West Virginia Democrat is going to be different than a California Democrat. They share some commonalities with each other on economic issues, but social attitudes are going to be very different.

That's why I thought it was very shortsighted for Democrats to give the quasi "run them out of town" treatment to people like Sinema and Manchin. They didn't like Joe Manchin (A West Virginia democrat) because he "wasn't progressive enough". As if they thought "if we just get Manchin out of the way, we can replace him with a Democrat that has the views of AOC". Instead of realizing that getting a Democratic senator elected at all in WV (who at least sided with his fellow democrats 40% of the time) should be considered "bonus points"

And we all saw the end result

They got their wish, they got Machin out of there, and a lot of good it did for them... his seat in the Senate was flipped & filled (quite easily) by Jim Justice (hard-line conservative who was the former Governor of the state)


I suspect (and this is just a gut feeling based on observations), that if there were a party that was economically center-left, but socially centrist, that would cast a wide enough net to represent the views of a pretty large cohort of people in the US.

 

[Laodicean60]

I don't know if this is true but RFK said he couldn't compete with the other two parties because of campaign laws, I would vote for more parties. With two parties we've been arguing the same stuff for 25 years and look out the window we have a lot of poor in this country. Maybe a third party has a different perspective but the elephant is the media. I think RFK had a token worth of interviews on Fox and CNN.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I never really understood why the "moral majority"/"religious right" cohort was every really that keen on him in the first place.

Because the religious right is fueled more by authoritarianism and a thirst for power than it is by any duty to righteousness.

That's the thing. The Democrats eren't paying enough attention to real people. I live in a red state surrounded by conservative Evangelicals and know better. but if all I knew about conservative Christians was what I see in this forum or in the media generally I might well be inclined to stereotype them as, well, Marjorie Taylor Greene, anybody?

Professionals - the sorts who are appalled by everything about Trump - are "real people," too. We're just not numerous enough to achieve a string of clear wins.

 

[KCfromNC]

I never really understood why the "moral majority"/"religious right" cohort was every really that keen on him in the first place.

Christian nationalists likely to support authoritarianism

Americans who hold Christian nationalist views are also likely to express support for forms of authoritarianism, according to a new report from the Public Religion Research Institute.

www.baptiststandard.com

One Leader Under God: The Connection Between Authoritarianism and Christian Nationalism in America | PRRI

www.prri.org

and so on, and so forth.

 

[Say it aint so]

As I've said before, if Trump can help union members in measurable ways, Democrats will be in trouble because they had some GREAT opportunities to do so and they did not.

I just have a hard time believing he's going to do that.

Dems have always helped unions.
Yes, the pick is pro union, but she is working within executive branch represented by a party who are not.
If your boss isn't keen to your ideals, chances are they aren't going anywhere.

 

[rambot]

Dems have always helped unions.

Uhhh.....they have done BETTER, but "always" is a pretty big qualifier

Yes, the pick is pro union, but she is working within executive branch represented by a party who are not.
If your boss isn't keen to your ideals, chances are they aren't going anywhere.

I agree 100%.

 

[Say it aint so]

Uhhh.....they have done BETTER, but "always" is a pretty big qualifier


I agree 100%.

Better in action? as I said they have been there. Better on messaging, absolutely.