On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 18:32:46 -0500 Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote
>Gar Lipow wrote:
>>I never understood why the Unions don't put more of their money into
>>initiatives and less into donations to hack politicians.
>Well there's always Bob Fitch's explanation - they're looking for
>friendly politicians who won't indict them!
-I guess, I'll take Bob Fitch's until something more cynical comes along.
How about unions are cheap and running initiatives can be very expensive, especially compared to the bang for the buck of electing politicians who can work in multiple areas. One initiative campaign can absorb the total energy of the whole political apparatus of a union for most of a year, given the big money spent to defeat it. Unions have run a number of progressive initiatives in a variety of areas, but especially on health care, and have seen them defeated by big money running nasty propaganda campaigns against them. A few have passed but usually nothing more significant than what unions can get passed with a good legislative campaign.
Since California went Democratic again in 1998-- even with the limits of Davis's vetos-- the Dems have passed a number of significant pro-union bills, from barring judges from stopping strikes to restoring daily overtime pay to union agency fees for public employees.
With the contrasting examples of expensive, usually losing initiatives campaigns and significant gains from electoral/legislative work, it's basic cost-effectiveness to go the electoral route. I used to be a big fan of initiatives-- I cut my teeth on them as a MASSPIRG activist way back when -- but I have become more and more convinced of their narrow organizational effects and general ineffectiveness for the money that usually needs to be spent (usually overwhelmingly to TV ads).
-- Nathan Newman