>The president of the largest AFL-CIO union, Service Employees International
>Union, said yesterday the Democratic Party and labor movement might be
>better off in the long run if Senator John Kerry loses the election.
No, he didn't, though some of the headlines implied he did.
----- John, he *did* make the statement, to be sure it was a subtle point but he did say what I referred to above on Democracy Now! today and he is also quoted in USA Today (why would Hoffa have denouced what he said if he didn't say it?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2004-07-27-seiu-president_x.htm
Labor leader: Unions may be more driven to change if Kerry loses BOSTON (AP) — The head of the largest union in the AFL-CIO says the labor movement is in crisis and might be more motivated to change if Democrat John Kerry is not elected president — even though he doesn't want to chance it by keeping George W. Bush in the White House. Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, with 1.6 million members, said in an interview Monday with The Washington Post that the effort he is leading to restructure organized labor would lose momentum under a Democratic president.
"I don't know if it would survive with a Democratic president," Stern told the newspaper in a story published Tuesday, saying labor leaders would become partners in the new establishment.
Asked if a Kerry presidency would help or hurt the internal union deliberations about change, Stern said, "I think it hurts."
Some labor leaders quickly distanced themselves Tuesday from Stern.
"Ridiculous," said Teamsters President James P. Hoffa, when asked in an AP interview about Stern's comments. "I think it's divisive and I think it hurts our cause, and I think the best thing to do is just disregard his comments."