Speaking of cross-endorsing, here’s the Working Families Party lineup for New Britain and Norwalk. It’s all Democrats–although it isn’t the entire Democratic slate for each city. The WFP has endorsed candidates from both parties in the past, and according to Deb Noble, co-chair of the 5th Congressional District chapter of the WFP, “The ones who got our endorsement, the Working Families seal of approval, were the ones who truly understand issues like good, living wage jobs, good schools, and affordable healthcare, and hold the courage of their convictions to fight for those issues.” So there you go. In addition to cross-endorsements, WFP does run candidates independent of either major party–such as a slate for Hartford’s city council this year.
If you’re wondering, cross-endorsement can and does help candidates win.
Norwalk
Mayor
Walter Briggs (D)
City Council at-large
Michael Geake (D)
Amanda Brown (D)
Doug Sutton (D)
Fred Bondi (D)
Marc Bradley (D)
City Council Districts
Steve Serasis (D) – Council District A
Kevin Poruban (D) and Laurel Lindstrom (D) – Council District C
Anna Duleep (D) and Gail Wall (D) – Council District D
Gwen Briggs (D) and Bill Krummel (D) – Council District E
New Britain
Common Council at-large
Mike Trueworthy (D)
Eva Magnuszewski (D)
Paula Mele (D)
City Council districts
Greg Gerratana (D) – 1st District
Phil Sherwood (D) – 4th District
Board of Education
Aram Ayalon (D)
37 responses so far ↓
Genghis,
Please don’t tell me you consider the WFP anything other than another labor wing of the Democrat party. You are much too smart to be hoodwinked by a few “token” endorsements of GOP and non-Dem candidates. I’m all for minor parties giving the electorate more choices, but the WFP is rather transparent in its motives.
“Deb Noble, co-chair of the 5th Congressional District chapter of the WFP, “The ones who got our endorsement, the Working Families seal of approval, were the ones who truly understand issues like good, living wage jobs, good schools, and affordable healthcare, and hold the courage of their convictions to fight for those issues.”
All very nice but………. What exactly is a living wage anyway?? I assume it must not be just a minimum wage job. What is the definition of good schools anyway?? I assume in CT it must then be more than just having the highest paid teachers in the country. What exactly is affordable healthcare? Is there a number we can consider beyond free? As if free actually meant there was no cost to us in the first place.. And what is meant by the courage of convictions to fight for those issues?
Who among us can disagree with any of those goals? So I guess one would wonder why the people elect locally, or we send to Congress, who promise us everything, don’t seem able to get much of anything done.
Did anybody else notice that all of the endorsed candidates were Democrats? Just to see if anyone pays attention to them, they should have endorsed all of the Republicans …
Glad to see Amanda Brown and Marc Bradley get the nod. I’m really impressed by both of them, especially Amanda.
Oh puleeze.. WFP is nothing more than a prettied up version of the Socialist party. And who cares anyway – they are so irrelevant as a “party”. It’s just another way for these Progressive Dems to get their name on the ballot more than once.
CTcentrist – WFP routinely endorses Republicans in NY, where the GOP is slightly less reactionary than it is here.
Al – a living wage is basically the poverty level adjusted for the cost of living / housing in a specific area. Generally, the assumption is that 1/3 of your salary should go to housing, so if the market rate for a 1BR apartment is $1000, you should be making $36K a year (I don’t know if that’s supposed to be pre- or post-tax).
>>It’s just another way for these Progressive Dems to get their name on the ballot more than once.
I wasn’t sure just what a Progressive Democrat was as opposed to just a regular Democrat so I looked it up:
Progressive Democrat
Main Entry:
Pronunciation: communist
noun
1: an adherent or advocate of communism
2capitalized : communard
3 acapitalized : a member of a Communist party or movement boften capitalized : an adherent or advocate of a Communist government, party, or movement
4often capitalized : one held to engage in left-wing, subversive, or revolutionary activities
— communist adjective often capitalized
— com·mu·nis·tic \ˌkäm-yə-ˈnis-tik, -yü-\ adjective often capitalized
— com·mu·nis·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
[quote comment="20339"]Oh puleeze.. WFP is nothing more than a prettied up version of the Socialist party. And who cares anyway – they are so irrelevant as a “party”. It’s just another way for these Progressive Dems to get their name on the ballot more than once.[/quote]
And? No reason a conservative party can’t do the same thing. In fact in NY the Conservative party and Independence party do just that, mostly for Republican candidates.
Also WFP in NY has a history of endorsing Republicans.
And CT WFP has endorsed Republicans in the past. It’s interesting that they don’t seem to be doing so right now, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t or won’t in the future.
>>And CT WFP has endorsed Republicans in the past.
What a kiss of death that must be.
[quote comment="20345"]>>And CT WFP has endorsed Republicans in the past.
What a kiss of death that must be.[/quote]
Yeah it’s terrible to have your name listed multiple times on the ballot. Absolutely terrible.
Al, WFP = AFL/CIO Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Families_Party
What’s interesting to me is that a lot of labor people seem to be working outside of organizing employees directly to bring about the larger societal changes that they’re after. You could view that a lot of different ways, I guess, but WFP seems to me an example of using leverage from a small number of highly dedicated and earnest people to impact politics on a larger level.
They remind me of the “Christian Right,” except switching the homophobic, misogynistic, premilleniallist fantasies of that group with an interest in the economic well-being of the middle class.
Matt, & Toucan,
Thanks for your comments……….My post #2 was simply in response to this comment of Deb Nobel:
“The ones who got our endorsement, the Working Families seal of approval, were the ones who truly understand issues like good, living wage jobs, good schools, and affordable healthcare, and hold the courage of their convictions to fight for those issues.”
I guess I wonder what does it take to truly understand these issues? Is it enough to say you are sympathetic to them as most of us are, or does that comment mean the people this group gives it’s “seal of approval” actually have real practical solutions for them, and if elected they would be able to get those solutions in place?
I say that because it just seems to me we have already elected so many other people who have told us that they truly understand these issues, and have the convictions to fight for them as well. So many in fact it would seem to me by now these issues would have been solved.
Al, the unions aren’t getting healthcare for life anymore so now they want the government to pay for it…
I am very happy and proud that the Working Families 5th C.D. Chapter has such an outstanding and fine caliber of candidates to endorse. Each individual has a conviction to improve healthcare, supports a living wage, and will work to improve the quality of life for the residents and the City of New Britain.
GO TEAM!
**If you would like to more about the definition of a living wage, affordable health care and the Working Families Party please go to our website http://www.ct-workingfamilies.org.**
Deb Noble, co-chair
Working Families Party
5th Congressional District Chapter
Why have a political party when all you do is endorse Democrats?
What a joke.
Remember when you pulled out candidates in close races so as to not damage the Democrat? That’s some party you got!
It’s pretty interesting to see that we’re getting called Socialists (posts 5 and 7) and nothing more than a shell for the Democratic Party (post 1 and 3) at the same time – those contradictory accusations ought to prove that we’re neither.
The WFP is, in fact, a new political party. A party is just a group of people with a shared platform of ideals and a political strategy to push for them. In our case, those ideals are shared with a pretty broad swath of working and middle class people in Connecticut: good jobs, affordable healthcare, good public schools, and so on. And our strategy often involves cross-endorsement, because it’s a valuable tool for minor parties to influence the debate, build alliances, and pressure politicians to be better on our issues.
In Norwalk and New Britain, there are some Democrats running for office who are very good on our issues, and we’re proud to support them. And politicians from either major party who are willing to go to bat on our issues have nothing to fear from us.
But for those who doubt our independence, check out the three Working Families Party candidates for Hartford City Council here: http://www.workingfamiliesforhartford.com
Or just ask Alex Knopp.
Hey Joe, isn’t it true that Hartford guarantees opposition party representation.
You’re not endangering Democrats on the Council, you’re endangering Republicans.
How about the fact that you pull your candidates when it looks like it may hurt Democrats?
You are not a political party, you are democrats.
There are about 25 candidates running for city council in Hartford. Are they all Democrats except for the Republicans?
We have endorsed Republicans in the past, and we’re willing to, any time they’ll work for better wages, more affordable housing, and broader access to healthcare.
“Most Americans are tired of the narrow choices offered by the two party system.” CT Working Families Party.
Of the 51 candidates you cross endorsed for the General Assembly last year, 49 were Democrats. You only ran actual candidates in districts where it was apparent that you would not hurt the Democrat.
I read about your “strategy” about fusion voting. What you essentially are doing is attempting to make the Democrat Party more liberal by supporting some of their candidates so that you can “hold them accountable.”
That’s fine, but don’t fool yourself into thinking you’re an actual political party. Just accept what you are – a wing of the Democrat Party.
Couple more things, Joe.
Your party has the opportunity to access public funds to run “clean” campaigns next year. You claim your party is the fastest growing in the state. You should be able to meet qualifying limits in a few races, right?
Will the Working Families Party run a candidate in a swing district that may siphon off votes from a Democrat that may tilt the election in favor of the Republican? Or will you simply cross-endorse the Democrat? A real party would put their efforts into winning an election in their own right, but you would not want to jeopardize Democrats, correct?
Also, regarding endorsing Republicans – have you ever endorsed a Republican who faced a real Democrat candidate? It looks like the two you endorsed last year were unopposed.
Deborah,
Thanks for the link………I viewed it but I must be honest there is not much specific detail there, and I didn’t learn very much about how the understanding of these issues leads to actual solutions.
Could you please help me? I have a couple of simple questions. What is WFP ’s definition of what a living wage would be here in CT?
Matt W listed his logic in his post # 6 do you agree with him??
Beyond that, what ideas does your party and the people it supports have to attract the sort of jobs into CT that would provide such wages?
Well, everyone wants a rising economic tide. It’s a question of whether or not the first step in getting there should be building bigger yachts.
Not speaking for the party here, but I suspect that if a Dem is truly bad on WFP’s issues, they could come in for a challenge. If I were the one responsible for spiking the sick days bill or the single payer bill, I might be looking over my shoulder.
[quote comment="20371"]There are about 25 candidates running for city council in Hartford. Are they all Democrats except for the Republicans?
We have endorsed Republicans in the past, and we’re willing to, any time they’ll work for better wages, more affordable housing, and broader access to healthcare.[/quote]
In broad terms, can you share how a municipal office holder has an effect on these items other than lowering taxes to make things more affordable, promoting sound economic development policy and appointing PZC members where they aren’t elected? And I’m at a loss on the health-care point all-together when it relates to muni government as the state pretty much ties their hands on this.
(And my questions here are sincere and are not in any way meant to sound antagonistic, merely wondering what the WFP logic is.)
Toucan,
Yes clearly for quite some time now unions have in some success in getting government to mandate things for them that they have not been able to win in negotiations.
It may surprise you that I don’t always consider that to be bad.
However, two things immediately jump out at me……One, we are in a global economy, not just a domestic one. So the more incentive we give business to out source to reduce it’s costs, the more it will….No different than if you throw something into the air, you can be sure it will come down someplace.
Two, is more interesting to me……..At what point do the people who pay union dues ( which I just see as another tax for them) start to ask if government is doing for me, what my union cannot, why am I paying union dues to get the same thing someone who is not paying those dues also gets?
In other words, when do the unions become the victim of their own success again, just like they have by playing a role in loss of jobs by helping to make out sourcing so cost advantageous?
Bottom line for me is we all need to wake up……..We are not going to beat the Chinese using the same old adversarial relationship model between management and labor, or in politics……
D_R – WFP also works in state legislative and congressional districts – I don’t want to put words in Joe’s mouth, but that could explain it.
The NY WFP provided the margin of victory for the Republican in a swing senate seat a couple of years ago (I believe stewart-cousins was the loser in that one and ultimately won a few years later).
Thanks Gabe. My question wasn’t really party related at all though, more office related. I received some reader feedback through email too.
Did they agree with me?
Well this has been the most lively discussion of WFP and cross-endorsment in the CT blogosphere, so that’s exciting. With the passage of new legislation this year to broaden “fusion” voting/cross-endorsement, these discussions will start to matter more and more.
Clearly there are folks on this blog who just don’t agree with our worldview, which is fine.
The discussion of unions seeking government power to legislate what they cannot bargain for their members is an interesting one. There’s a lot to say about that but time is short so I’ll limit myself to saying that: 1. It’s hardly a recent phenomenon (I trust you’ve all heard of the minimum wage, social security, and the weekend), and 2. Such efforts overwhelmingly benefit folks who are not actually in unions so why should anyone complain about it.
Al – Living Wage policies that we’ve successfully passed in Norwalk and Manchester require firms that get city contracts and tax breaks to pay employees a wage that gets a family of four over 110% of the federal poverty level based on 40 hrs/week PLUS health benefits. That comes out to about $11/hr. plus health benefits. And by the way, you can’t exactly outsource the school bus drivers or day care providers to China, so the whole “job loss” bugaboo you raise is a red herring in this case.
The one comment that I think truly misses the point of the WFP is the notion that this is somehow not a “real” party. I always thought that a party was group of people who shared similar values (ideology, worldview, etc.) and seeks to hold or influence government power in accordance with those values. The “winner take all” electoral system in the U.S. lends itself to a party system that is dominated by two parties and as a result the two parties become very big, very broad, and increasingly incoherent when it comes to public policy and ideology. In that respect, the Working Families Party was formed precisely because the other major parties seemed “unreal” to us in the sense that they lacked clear core principles — the thing we considered to be the whole point of being in a party in the first place.
As for the cross-endorsement tactic, it’s just a logical strategic preference in a political/legal environment that simply doesn’t offer much hope for minor parties to successfully elect their own candidates. Where the political/legal environment is more favorable — like Hartford’s city council race — then yes our preference is generally to run our own to win as we did in Willimantic in ‘03 and Hartford BOE in ‘05. But let’s not lose sight of the broader goal which is to influence policy. In NY the cross-endorsement of one Republican State Senator was the political key to passing a minimum wage increase that boosted incomes for 500,000 NY residents.
That doesn’t mean we will always back all Democrats. In Waterbury this year we received endorsement requests from eight or nine Democratic candidates for Alderman and we decided to endorse only one. In other races we have run against Democratic incumbents who we didn’t think supported our issues. It’s true that sometimes we withdraw a candidate because we don’t want to be a spoiler for a progressive candidate who supports our positions. (This isn’t rocket science — or even political science — if the goal is to pass public policy that we support, it makes sense to avoid un-electing legislators who also support those policies!) In other cases we have not withdrawn our candidates and sometimes it really mattered. Alex Knopp in Norwalk turned down the WFP endorsement in ‘05 and it probably cost him the election. (Which might explain why so many Norwalk Dems rushed to get the endorsement this year.) And lets not forget poor Brian McDermott, State Senator from Wallingford. We ran a candidate against McDermott in ‘02 when he was challenged by Len Fasano. Many Democratic Party leaders urged us to withdraw from the election because McDermott was in a close race. But we pointed out that McDermott had voted against increasing the minimum wage and against campaign finance reform. Sure enough, he lost by about 1% of the vote and blamed the WFP for it.
Sorry for the lengthy post.
Look forward to continuing the discussion.
[quote post="1040"]Yes clearly for quite some time now unions have in some success in getting government to mandate things for them that they have not been able to win in negotiations. [/quote]
Al, I don’t think that is what I siad and it is certainly not what I meant. WFP, which is a front for the AFL-CIO, is trying to get medicare for all becasue they know employers have been asking them more and more to pay for their own healthcare just as they pay for other basic needs like transportation, food and shelter. I’ll be the first to argue we need to level the playing field in the global economy but I’ll never agree that the government should provide basic needs for anybody but the poor and disadvantaged. As for the definition of a “living wage” being mandated to all employers in the state, it’s the same as “prevailing wage” that’s mandated on almost all state and local jobs if you have ever heard of that little free market breaker.
Jon, You said:
Al – Living Wage policies that we’ve successfully passed in Norwalk and Manchester require firms that get city contracts and tax breaks to pay employees a wage that gets a family of four over 110% of the federal poverty level based on 40 hrs/week PLUS health benefits. That comes out to about $11/hr. plus health benefits. And by the way, you can’t exactly outsource the school bus drivers or day care providers to China, so the whole “job loss” bugaboo you raise is a red herring in this case.
Jon, Sorry but I didn’t suggest in any of my posts on this subject that Living Wage jobs are the reason for job loss to China……I only asked what was considered a Living Wage…. Which it appears you have answered for me… Thanks.
If you look back, my comment on jobs lost by being outscoured to China comes from my post # 27 on a different concern.
You may feel I am one who disagrees with your “worldwide” view.. You maybe surprised to learn I really am not……..But that does not mean that I also don’t understand that unless Americans are willing to pay far more for things than they pay now, the rest of the world will continue to have a direct impact on us.
Toucan your post number 32,
I do think you and I are saying the same thing, which I think is:
We both feel it is not the role of government ( except in certain cases) to be a tool for the unions to legislate what the unions cannot negotiate.
[quote comment="20403"]Toucan your post number 32,
I do think you and I are saying the same thing, which I think is:
We both feel it is not the role of government ( except in certain cases) to be a tool for the unions to legislate what the unions cannot negotiate.[/quote]
Got it! Agreed.
Al — You’re right, you didn’t specifically discuss outsourcing of jobs in the context of living wages. Of course, it’s an objection that is often raised to living wage laws — if we increase the cost of business, business will just leave. That argument has a certain logic, but doesn’t really apply to living wage laws that deal specifically with government service contracts which, as I stated earlier, simply can’t be outsourced.
And forgive me if I implied that you didn’t embrace our views. I don’t think I actually singled you out as having said that, but if I did I’m sorry and glad to hear that it’s not the case.
I’ve already responded a bit to the points raised by Toucan about Government legislating what unions cannot bargain but I’ll reiterate that while we are unabashedly pro-union, most of the policies we champion have universal benefits for a much, much broader population than the unfortunately small percentage that are covered by collective bargaining agreements.
Our legislative goals for the most recent legislative session, for example, had very little to do with collective bargaining issues. The vast majority of union members already have paid sick days, for example. There are some union members that do not have good sick day benefits, but we worked on that issue primarily with the community organization ACORN, which represents low- and moderate-income families in urban areas throughout the country. We also supported a state Earned Income Tax Credit which would deliver literally millions of dollars to low-wage workers in the form of tax credits and obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with collective bargaining.
Jon,
Thanks for the additional info……..However I do want to make a few comments on them.
First, I would like to make clear that embracing some of your parties views in no way should be construed to mean that I agree with how you may try to get to your solutions…..
For example you say in post # 32:
“Living Wage policies that we’ve successfully passed in Norwalk and Manchester require firms that get city contracts and tax breaks to pay employees a wage that gets a family of four over 110% of the federal poverty level based on 40 hrs/week PLUS health benefits.”
While on the surface this would not seem unreasonable, what disturbs me here is that this sort of policy has the effect of punishing property tax owners in those towns by forcing both places to pay more for services than they may actually need to. In fact you are really adding to the cost of government, which is already out of control almost everywhere.
I would also suggest that this sort of price fixing probably has a very negative affect on as many low income working people, as it has a positive effect. Someone gets the job here who otherwise would not have, while someone loses a job here who otherwise would have had it…….To me the net effect makes for good high minded sound bites, but solves nothing, and only trades one problem for another.
I don’t disagree with the idea of a Living Wage. I disagree with the simplistic thinking that one can just legislate it, and then pretend that it has no negative effects someplace in the process.
Actually I would be far happier if your group asked a far better question….What does it take to naturally encourage the generation of more Living Wage (and higher) jobs? What aspects of your agenda deals with the problem that the cost of doing business in CT is a major problem that way?
You must log in to post a comment.