patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Unions May Be Key to U.S. Senate Race

As debate schedules are set and signatures collected, campaigns are in full swing

 

It was another busy week in the race for U.S. Senate last week as we start counting down the weeks to the April 30 primary.

As of Wednesday, two Democrats and three Republicans filed the required number of signatures to run in the special election for U.S. Senate. On the Democrat side we have U.S. Reps. Edward Markey and Stephen Lynch. So far for Republicans, it’s former U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan, former Navy SEAL Gabriel Gomez of Cohasset and State Rep. Dan Winslow (R-Norfolk). All five submitted more than the required number of signatures to the Secretary of State’s office to appear on the April 30 Primary ballot. City and town clerks have until Monday to deliver all signatures.

The five are all vying for the seat left vacant by John Kerry’s appointment to Secretary of State back in December 2012.

Democrats Agree on Debate Schedule

Markey (D-Malden) and Lynch (D-South Boston) agreed to participate in six debates between now and the April 30 primary. Three will be general format and three will focus on jobs, domestic issues and foreign policy. The debates will be spread out and are scheduled to be held in Lowell, New Bedford, Worcester and Springfield. The location of the sixth debate is yet to be determined.

Endorsements Pouring in, Unions Could be Key to Democratic Race

Both democratic candidates picked up some key endorsements last week. With two candidates who are both pro-labor, Lynch and Markey are expected to split the labor vote in the democratic primary, and true to that both picked up key labor endorsements, as well.

Mass.live reported this week that although the unions don’t make up a large percentage of the voting population, they can be major contributors when it comes down to fundraising and manpower.

Earlier in the week Lynch was endorsed by the The Massachusetts Nurses Association /National Nurses United (MNA/NNU), the largest union of registered nurses and health professionals in the Commonwealth.

Lynch also received the endorsement of the Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts, Markey picked up the endorsement of the AFSCME Council 93. The organization represents more than 35,000 Massachusetts state, county and municipal workers.

He was also endorsed this week by NARAL Pro-Choice America’s political action committee.  

On the Republican side, Gomez gained support from Central Massachusetts’ Republican State Committee members Brent Andersen and Mindy McKenzie-Hebert when he kicked off his campaign last week. According to mass.live, the two issued a joint statement in support of Gomez.

On the Road Again 

Candidates continued to crisscross the state last week as their campaigns went into full swing.

Markey made stops last week in Belmont, Newton, Brighton, Taunton and Hyannis.

Lynch made the rounds on the North Shore that included stops in Lynn,Peabody and Salem.

The last day for residents to register to vote in the April 30 primary is April 10.

Related Topics: Dan Winslow, Edward Markey, Gabriel Gomez, Michael Sullivan, Stephen Lynch, and U.S. Senate

LJ

7:02 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

the only union im interested in is a taxpayers union. Anyone else tired of pols and their ties to unions?

Reply

BH Resident

10:58 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

So sick of hearing about unions. The unions need to go. There is no place for them anymore, just another way for some to pocket money while ripping off others.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Matthew

12:11 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013

There is no place? Oh, how wrong you are. You're only focusing on the negative aspects of unions. You think that they are only organizations rife with corruption. What you fail to recognize are the millions of people who count on unions to protect them from corporate greed.

Kevin Kelly

11:52 pm on Sunday, March 3, 2013

There has been a relentless effort to eliminate the achievements of unions, including wiping out hard-won collective bargaining agreements and rolling back long-fought-for benefits. Most workers understand the value of unions, including the need to belong to one in order to have a decent life.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Plenty O'Toole

10:05 am on Monday, March 4, 2013

It's getting old, Kevin, real old.

Comment_arrow

Matthew

12:12 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013

I agree 100%. Anyone who thinks that we should just scrap unions and screw over millions of people have obviously never worked a job where union protection is necessary.

just thinking

12:43 am on Monday, March 4, 2013

what schools did markey's kids go to,you know they were in MARYLAND

Reply
Comment_arrow

BenLaGuer

12:15 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013

They did not attend public schools in Massachusetts?

LJ

5:39 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013

Kevin Kelly, the relentless effort I see is the one to eliminate corrupt unions (virtually all of them). Public-sector unions are the worst, joined at the hip w/ the pols whom the unions elect and then rely on for boosting their pay w/ sweet contracts. Let's face it, pols rarely represent Joe Taxpayer these days. The unions rule.

Reply

LJ

6:06 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013

Philadelphia magazine had a story on the Pestronk brothers and how they fought back against union strong-arm tactics. Check out the website www.phillybully.com for videos of union thugs and more. Pathetic behavior by union members and union management alike.

And how are unions of any conceivable use to the taxpaying public? Not PLAs, that's for sure!

Reply

Kevin Kelly

8:41 pm on Monday, March 4, 2013

While unions sometimes act in a self-interested manner, they make the middle class stronger both economically and politically. Unions increase wages and benefits for members, and non-members, and have defended Social Secirity, Medicare, family leave, minimum wage and health care reform. If unions are weakened, the rich will truly "get richer." Since 1974, income earned by corporate America has quadrupled and without strong unions, the middle class will lose out to the welathy. Strengthening unions is as important to the middle class as increasing college graduation rates.

Reply

LJ

6:48 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

is there evidence for your claims? If union membership is so attractive, a) why is it essentially compulsory and not voluntary, and b) why has union membership declined so much over decades?

Reply
Comment_arrow

Matthew

8:15 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Perhaps reform is needed, but anyone who thinks that people should not be allowed collective barganing is wrong, end of discussion. In the U.S., corporations can get away with whatever they want. Workers, on the other hand, should have no rights (according to anti-unionists).

Comment_arrow

UNICORN

9:09 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

LJ- once employees vote to have union representation everyone gets union benefits.Membership is compulsory because otherwise people could enjoy the benefits of union representation while letting others foot the bill.

Comment_arrow

BenLaGuer

9:18 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Matthew, does your strawman have a name?
Please name one person who thinks "Workers.... should have no rights."

Comment_arrow

Matthew

8:58 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Ben,

Apparently you don't pay attention to the news.

Kevin Kelly

8:53 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

While union membership in the private sector has declined, public sector unions continue to thrive. Unions helps ensure workers are treated fairly and it allows members to have a voice in the decision-making process. Some of the countries with the highest growth rates also have the highest rates of unionization. As for the decline in union membership, large companies continue to wage a systematic campaign to eliminate unions and some overly aggressive unions hurt themselves by asking for too much. Also, women, teenagers and illegal immigrants represent a larger part of the work force and most are less interested in the long-term objectives of unions.

Reply

Kevin Kelly

8:56 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

LJ, can we agree to disagree?

Reply

Joseph

11:25 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

When unions brass start explaining how they can justify their hefty expense accounts and lavish lifestyles, and are able to convince the public that they are “different” than the corporate executives who enjoy the exact same lavish lifestyle that union brass admonish, then maybe I’ll open my mind. Who am I kidding, I will never support you union frauds.

Why should union jobs should be guaranteed, as well as their pensions, verses someone who isn’t part of a union and contributes to a nonguaranteed (401k) retirement package? If I don’t work hard or meet goals and deadlines, I run the risk of being fired. Union hacks don’t perform as required and get suspended or fired, they file a grievance and get their job back. There is no argument for anything guaranteed. What in life is guaranteed besides death and taxes?

How is it that unions can willing go on strike and at the same time COLLECT UNEMPLOYMENT (Verizon) because of their willingness NOT TO WORK?? I work with a guy who’s father-in-law is part of that Verizon union. Frauds!!

Reply

Joseph

11:26 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

(con't)

Why aren’t plumbers or electricians or pushcart entrepreneurs able to work without pressure to join a union, without fear of harassment, in order to earn a living for his family? Why should these hardworking entrepreneurs be FORCED to give a percentage of their hard earned paycheck to someone else? Don’t join the union, we’ll harass you. Sounds like extortion to me. I purposely refuse to hire union contractors, and I know dozens of others that believe the same.

How can union brass think they are any different than corporate lobbyists? Both use their power to influence rules, regulations and even worse, government elections. So why are corporate lobbyists worse than union brass? They aren’t. Union brass are worse cause if they don’t get their way, they’ll refuse to work, go on strike and still collect paychecks from us taxpayers. DISGUSTING!!!

All unions should be dissolved. They are a burden on employers and hardworking working Americans that are forced to “pay to play” in order to earn a living for their families.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Matthew

11:32 am on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

But then the pendulum could easily swing the other way. It could end up being a free for all on the American Worker. Unions aren't just limited to tradesmen and contractors. Teachers, cops, fire fighters, etc. all belong to them. If membership should be compulsory is a valid question to ask. However, if we're going to dissolve unions, we should dissolve the companies of all the criminals who essentially got away with almost destroying the U.S. economy. But that's apparently off limits.

Comment_arrow

Joseph

2:38 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Unions are as bad a lobbyists and PACs. They have no business in elections.

"Free for all" on the American Worker? HA!! That's pretty freakin funny there Matthew. If that point was remotely true, why wouldn't corporate monkeys (such as myself) be concerned? It's called hard work. Union members feel entitled. Plain and simple. Happens to be a common theme these past few years. Sad stuff. G'day

Comment_arrow

Matthew

5:49 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Joseph,

One only has to understand why unions came into being to begin with. Without that understanding, it is impossible to see why they are necessary. Reform? Yes. Banning them? Only if we ban the "corporate monkeys" who made it necessary for workers to band together in the first place.

Kevin Kelly

1:45 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

The vast majority of unions members ARE hard-working, conscientious employees who take pride in their job performance and don't deserve to be covered in the same blanket of the small percentage who abuse the system. While this is a "hot button" issue, I am firm in my resolve that unions play a vital role in the survival of the middle class.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Joseph

2:47 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Hard work plays a vital role in the middle class. Nothing more. Mr. Pro Union refuses to address any topics that I brought up. Typical attitude. Nothing to see here. Carry on.

Tell me the difference between a union plumber and a nonunion plumber? Or a union fireman vs a nonunion fireman? Or union teacher vs nonunion teacher? Expertise wise? Seriously, please educate me. Maybe I'm missing something. I can tell you one thing for sure - Non Union has a greater take home pay to spend on his family, not to fund the expense accounts of Union Brass (aka, Corporate CEOs).

Comment_arrow

Matthew

5:51 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Joseph,

So far all you're mentioning are private sector unions. How about the cops and other public emplyees who find protection in their respective unions? Do they not count.

LJ

3:14 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

unicorn, you may want to google "agency fee" - not to mention "Beck v. CWA"

Reply

LJ

3:25 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Joseph, +1.

Matthew, your comments form weak arguments every time you mention "corporate America." And stop putting words in the mouths of anti-unionists re rights.

Reply

LJ

3:33 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Kevin Kelly, in reply to your comment about public-sector unions--

As I said above, public-sector unions are the worst, joined at the hip w/ the pols whom the unions elect and then rely on for boosting their pay w/ sweet contracts. Let's face it, pols rarely represent Joe Taxpayer these days. The unions rule.

The pols are supporting those who elect them, namely, the unions and the union members. The pols ought to be representing all taxpayers, but the inherent conflict of interest (support of unions) prevents that. All taxpayers should have it as cozy as public-sector unions do!

Everyone check out www.psrf.org

Reply

Kevin Kelly

5:07 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

I've expressed my opinion. The dog has been "kicked" enough. Thank you Patch for giving us this format for "give-and-take."

Reply

Plenty O'Toole

5:26 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

End the bloated unions, parasites sucking off the public mammary gland. Enough is enough.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Matthew

5:47 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

So the American working class are "parasites", according to you. And the banks that took billions upon billions are not?

Comment_arrow

BenLaGuer

8:37 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Matthew,

Again with your strawman attacks?

Comment_arrow

Matthew

9:00 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Ben,

Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion? Didn't think so.

Comment_arrow

BenLaGuer

9:18 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013

LOL. How have you added substance? All I see are personal attacks and ridiculous false statements and accusations.

LJ

6:20 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

OK, Matthew, two wrongs make a right, and employers are inherently evil. Now I get it. Have a nice life!

Reply

LJ

6:22 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Oh, and don't forget Joe Taxpayer's rights, and stop living in the unions' past glories. My calendar says it's now 2013.

Reply

Velvet Jones

6:40 pm on Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Obviously Joseph and LJ work at jobs that s**k , where they have no say in conditions , and get used and taken advantage of on a daily basis by their big hearted management. So they get very jealous of a UNION man's benefits and working conditions, and instead of standing up for themselves and fighting for their own benefits, they want to take away their neighbors benefits instead. Corporate America's useful idiots. Maybe you 2 guys can tell us ONCE when corporate America did right by it's workers voluntarily ? One of you mentioned Verizon, where the CEO got $55,000 per DAY, yes day, but you go against the UNION because they were fighting for some healthcare ?

Reply

LJ

8:56 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Velvet, I was a union member for 20 years. No jealousy here, happy to be out of the union and in a fine job. you and Matthew keep raising "corporate America" as the subject. The subject is unions. stick to defending them, if u can.

Man, it's amazing how anti-union writing strikes a raw nerve in those in the pro-union camp.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Matthew

9:02 am on Wednesday, March 6, 2013

LJ,

I don't have time to take apart put weak argument right now, but I'll surely do so a bit later. I never back down.

Joseph

4:03 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2013

@Matthew - Follow this story. Watch who comes to her "defense."

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/03/early_ed_chief_a_no_show_as_gov_visits_child_center

The Commonwealth wants to tax us more, to pay the salary of this fraud, and she doesn't even show up to work. "But her contract claims that YAP YAP YAP YAP."

Reply

Joseph

8:35 am on Friday, March 8, 2013

@Kevin Kelly & @Matthew - Follow this story. Let's sit back and watch how this plays out. Mumbles battles his biggest supporters. This should be real good.

"habit of putting drugs ... from suspects in his pocket where he also kept cookies to eat.” OR even better, "...said he thought the powder he brushed off his cruiser seat was from doughnuts, not cocaine," and that "He also said he lived in a townhouse that shared a heating vent with neighbors who were crack smokers."

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/03/menino_vows_fight_on_cops_reinstatement

Reply

Leave a comment