February 27, 2013

Union Bossy

Labor May Fight Against a Progressive Ballot Measure

Tools

In a nasty case of liberal-versus-liberal politics, progressive labor unions are emerging as possible opponents of a city initiative that would require electing the Seattle City Council by seven new districts, which is considered a progressive cause. "We feel the Seattle Districts Now proposal will have the effect of undermining the voting power of persons of color," writes UFCW 21 organizer Steve Lansing in a February 15 e-mail sent to a source. Lansing's food workers' union is joined in the cause by SEIU Healthcare 775NW, OneAmerica Votes, Washington CAN!, and the Win/Win Network.

But politically speaking, their motivation seems transparent: It may be less about racial justice and more about unions retaining their influence. Candidates elected by smaller districts would need less money and fewer connections to win than in the citywide races that Seattle conducts currently, so switching to districts instead of at-large elections could mean that major lobbies and big funders (like labor unions and their allies) have less sway in campaign season—and over politicians once they're elected.

Stranger Personals

Reached for comment, UFCW spokesman Steve Williamson says, "That's not what's going on" and that his group just "want[s] the best proposal to go forward."

FacebookShare

Comments (6) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

districts are progressive because you can run in a district of 88,000 people based on doorbelling and grass roots politics! but in the at large system, our council candidates have to run in a humongous district of 620,000 people -- about the size of a state like vermont, or wyoming, almost the size of a congressional district -- and that means they focus on dialing the high dollar donors. Not going door to door reaching out to real voters.

Check out the SEEC pie charts on donations. Most are from downtown and a funney Seattle neighborhood called "Outside of Seattle." And most are the big dollar donors.

Districts are the best, and cheapest, campaing finance reform possible. When san francisco went to districts, they elected an electrician! districts are grass roots and open the door of opportunity to all. This is why progressive groups like the local democratic party groups (37th district democrats, 32d district democrats, 11th district democrats and 46th district democrats) are supporting the seattle districts now signature gathering effort so we the people can vote on this charter amendment this fall.

oh by the way -- those groups in the 37th and 11th legislative districts would be where minority strength exists inside SEattle, although of course we in seattle have a proud history of electing people of color even in at large voting. Norm Rice. The point of the 7 districts though is to open the door so that whoever you are, you don't have to cozy up to Big Dollar Donors as the prerequisite for being viable.

Posted by at large = "districtofmoney" on February 27, 2013 at 10:44 AM · Report

Or maybe the maps suck. Your attempt to call out unions for being self-serving, using only innuendo, isn't very impressive.

I haven't seen the maps - and I support district elections or a hybrid system in Seattle - but I'm glad to see groups who have looked at the maps closely question them in an attempt to make them better. That should be the role of journalists as well.

Posted by sparkglobal on February 28, 2013 at 2:13 PM · Report

The logic behind the argument is risky. Smaller districts could take less money, theoretically, but if that's true, that also means they are cheaper to buy from the stand point of big corporations/labor/outside influence.

Posted by Chris Govella

on March 3, 2013 at 2:54 PM · Report

Smaller doesn't mean Morally superior:ever check out what the Hammer did to Texas when he was Speaker of the House?Besides,Seattle Districts Now wants a MIXED voting system,not (true) district voting (which is implicitly required by the the Voting Rights Act of 1965,in case you didn't know).Win/Win is down with United for Fair Representation,so they are alright by me,and the I.W.W. is the only trully progressive labor union in the USA;the AFL-CIO,Change to Win,and most of the so-called "independent" unions are bourgeois!They are what Trotsky would've labelled "labor aristocrats";as long as THEY have a living wage and safe working conditions,then they don't give a fuck about anybody else!I contacted the usual self-serving suckspecks (such as Public Citizen,the National Lawyers' Guild,the American Civil Liberties Union,La Raza,The NAACP,the National Urban League,the National Organization for Women,the League of Women Voters,the POC affairs committees in Olympia,etc.),and they either didn't respond or dodged my inquiry (regarding at-large voting's illegality and its deleterious effect upon POCs,single mothers, and the Lower Class in Seattle )with vague replies.Pfft! ----- http://www.iww.org

Posted by 5th Columnist on March 3, 2013 at 4:49 PM · Report

@2--Why not go look at the map before posting? http://www.seattledistrictsnow.org/maps.…

@3--SDN does not claim districts will solve every problem. We do claim that district elections shift the power away from the "district of money."

Of course the oligarchs can swamp a district election. They do it now with city-wide council anyway. On the other hand, districts makes retail politics possible, something that is close to impossible with a district of 385,000 voters behind 240,000 doors.

Everyone--For some reason, The Stranger ran another version of this article. Longer and with more comments: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

Posted by TobyinFremont on March 6, 2013 at 4:33 PM · Report

Except for not using I-5 as a boundary, looks like a reasonable division.

Posted by billwald on March 7, 2013 at 5:54 PM · Report