Top union leader: Biden's Keystone plan wrong, will cost U.S. jobs

[Klaralven]

Why this matters: Organized labor is crucial to the Biden coalition. But there are significant tensions among environmentalists, the president's team addressing climate change and some parts of the labor movement.

- The Laborers' International Union of North America said the Keystone decision will cost 1,000 existing union jobs and 10,000 projected construction jobs.

- "The Laborers' International was right," said Trumka.

Between the lines: Trumka said he thought Biden had learned a lesson from his Keystone announcement and that he hopes the president will pair any future decisions that would kill union jobs with simultaneous and specific announcements about how those jobs would be replaced.

- "If you destroy 100 jobs in Greene County, Pennsylvania, where I grew up, and you create 100 jobs in California, it doesn't do those 100 families much good," Trumka said.

https://www.axios.com/richard-trumka-keystone-pipeline-joe-biden-62703d74-64b8-4c01-bee3-44f55d007ca1.html

[marble falls]

1. I have a lot of respect for Dick Trumpka but in his scenerio 100 families aren't working ...

... either way.

[Takket]

2. "Keystone decision will cost 1,000 existing union jobs and 10,000 projected construction jobs. "

So what?

11,000 jobs?

The devastation forthcoming to the world economy from climate change is going to be a HELL of a lot worse than that unless we get off fossil fuels.

A green new deal will reshape the energy landscape and provide many more jobs than one pipeline.

Besides, while covid has hurt construction, and everything else, BEFORE the pandemic hit there was a massive shortage of skilled trades. Construction companies were literally having a hard time finding enough builders to assign to projects. Once we clear the pandemic hurtle and begin a green energy initiative no one is going to have any trouble finding work.

but we need to think big......... like "building the interstate highway system" big. we've done it before and we can do it again.

[dem4decades]

11. So what? Do you want to lose PA Senate seat and PA next presidential?

So what?

How about not caring about handing the Republicans a club to hit us over the head with.

Address the job issue but don't say "so what", that just gives fodder to those that say Democrats are tone deaf to blue collar jobs.

[Takket]

34. Yeah. So what?

Keystone doesn’t even run through PA. Sounds more to me like Trumpka is sulking over coal in PA than anything to do with keystone.

And my point is Biden should be coming back and saying how many More Jobs he’s going to create with green initiatives.

[Act_of_Reparation]

35. What do you think the blue collar job market is going to look like when Miami is under water?

[wnylib]

13. In the long run, you are right about

climate change. But in the present and shorter term future, this matters a great deal. If Biden loses support, or if Dems lose seats in Congress, we will not be in a position to do anything about the environment or climate change. Do you think a Republican Congress or adminstration would care about either climate change or the environment?

[BarackTheVote]

36. Thinking only about the short term

is how we arrived at the climate crisis to begin with. We need to start investing in the future, like, YESTERDAY. We don’t have time to just think short term any more. Yes, Biden needs to articulate the risks and offer alternative paths. But we need to find a way to navigate the coming decades without conceding to any more environmental destruction just because it’s convenient “in the short term.”

[GoCubsGo]

23. Most of those 11,000 jobs are temporary, anyway.

It was only going to result in a small handful of permanent jobs--at least until it bursts and they need clean-up people. Not only could those workers be put to work on more permanent clean energy jobs, there's our deteriorating infrastructure. Biden is actually trying to get an actual infrastructure program going, rather than the bullshit PR stunts Trump kept pushing. Either one of them can provide tens of thousands more good, permanent jobs than that toxic, stupid-ass pipeline.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

27. How does the "temporary" work a Laborer does on a pipeline translate to a "more permanent

clean energy job"? Why is the clean energy job "more permanent"?

[GoCubsGo]

37. I never said that a temporary pipeline job translates into a more permanent clean energy job.

All I said was that the pipeline jobs are temporary. Clean energy jobs are more more permanent right now, because we're essentially starting from scratch, and the the job is massive. It's going to take decades to complete the infrastructure. Which means those jobs are going to last a hell of a lot longer than the few years it would take to build a pipeline. The ;same goes for infrastructure jobs (water/sewer, electrical grid, etc.) that I also included.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

40. What you said was, "Not only could those workers be put to work on more permanent clean energy

jobs..." and I was wondering how a construction job in clean energy is "more permanent" than one on pipelines, after your original comment of "Most of those 11,000 jobs are temporary, anyway," which is an attitude I often see -- that construction jobs are "temporary" and thus are easily dismissed when talking about construction people don't like. In that sense, clean energy construction jobs are just as "temporary" as other construction jobs.

[former9thward]

30. ALL construction jobs are "temporary"

Construction workers go from one temporary job to another their entire careers. Does that mean construction work is not valid?

[GoCubsGo]

38. ????

I'm not arguing whether their jobs are or are not "valid." The project is the problem, not the people they want to hire to build it.

[Goodheart]

3. No, it will CREATE jobs.

Moving to green energy is the next jobs boom.

[Celerity]

15. So much this!

[treestar]

39. So true

Idiocy to advocate over jobs that are becoming obsolete and destroy the planet.

[2naSalit]

4. Red herring and he knows it.

Those jobs are very temporary and none of the product gets used in the US, it all goes elsewhere after refining in Texas. It's a load of crap and they should wait another weeks to see what the green jobs upcoming will be. There will some requiring many of the skills those workers have so they can wait a few days to find out. Geez.

[Hiawatha Pete]

7. +1000! n/t

[Hiawatha Pete]

5. "The Keystone pipeline will create just 35 permanent jobs"

Source:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/25/keystone-pipeline-permanent-jobs-trump-claims

[FSogol]

29. As Conan O'Brien said, it will create hundreds of jobs. Unfortunately, most of those jobs will

be cleaning oil off of ducks using paper towels.

[Hiawatha Pete]

33. +1000 n/t

[Freethinker65]

6. Build something that causes less potential environmental damage and bad will? Repair infrastructure?

Problem solved.

Sure these major projects like pipelines create temporary jobs during construction, but once built, those jobs go away. We need to maintain, repair, and improve upon our existing infrastructure and energy grid. Lots of good well paying union jobs to be had.

[gratuitous]

8. What use is the Oglalla aquifer when 1,000 jobs might go away?

Jesus tits, Trumka. The economy has seen job losses week by week greater than those at any time in our history. But sure, let's destroy the Oglalla aquifer in service of 1,000 existing jobs and 10,000 "projected" construction jobs. Because when the Keystone XL pipeline leaks - and it will leak - it's going to foul the water supply for the farms of the nation's breadbasket and for millions of people. But we "saved" 11,000 jobs!

[SunSeeker]

9. Way to play into the hands of Republicans, Trumpka.

Your grandstanding on unguaranteed 10,000 temporary jobs will not help your union members, Trumpka. Green jobs will. Get on board with a green future, for your members' sake.

[SharonClark]

10. I come from a strong union family and a problem

with some unions is that they’re short-sided about the future and even reactionary toward change.

They inflate potential job losses while belittling potential job growth. They also do a poor job educating their members about the history of the labor movement and the reality of their jobs in the future.

[JI7]

12. This is what some on the left don't get

many union members oppose regulations to protect the environment and only things in terms of "jobs" in a way where they might as well be arguing FOR the pony express because JObs .

[Hermit-The-Prog]

19. Will no one think of the out of work lamplighter? Electricity is taking all the good jobs!

It seems to me the union "leader" in this case is just campaigning to the rank and file instead of educating or leading.

[Locrian]

22. and buggy whips.... omg all the buggy whip makers - all out of work - n/t

[halfulglas]

14. The shorted-sighted cycle never ends.

How many remember the short-sighted of the American auto makers in the 70's. Yes, they made some beautiful cars in the 60's and 70's, but while Washington was trying to mandate improving fuel standards. The companies fought the tooth and nail with not only lobbyists but got the unions to back them. "We can't afford to make the design changes. It costs too much money. We will have to retool the assembly lines." The unions told the government, "You can't do this. It's going to cost us jobs." They kept delaying the dates mandating of the fuel standards to take effect.

Well what happened of course is that Detroit kept taking their sales money but continuing to design the same gas hogs every year thinking the world wanted cars as big as boats at big prices. The car execs of course got their huge salaries.

What was happening was that the world was buying smaller cars, more gas efficient. Americans who couldn't afford the big Detroit gas hogs and were also buying fuel efficient German and Japanese cars, then even Korean cars. Americans were being called not patriotic for buying foreign cars they could afford. It was fashionable in Detroit to make fun of Japanese cars as not safe and pieces of tin but American car makers were starting to take on some foreign "partners" who didn't want to pay union wages and built their own cars in states other than Michigan. Car makers started blaming their financial troubles on the high wages they paid their union workers and the funding of their pension plans.

Of course, the point I'm making is that yes, the Detroit auto makers were short sighted in not thinking ahead, but they might have been forced to if the unions didn't join them. If the union execs would have looked in the driveways of their own members, they might have realized that even in Detroit, foreign cars were being driven and there was a reason for it.

[Historic NY]

16. How many of those project jobs are Canadian....

are we going through this bullshit again....most will be temporary at best. The pipeline is to bring Canadian tar sands oil to processing plants in Texas.

[former9thward]

31. None.

The Canadian line is already done. All construction jobs are temporary. I guess the construction sector of the economy does not count because it is "temporary".

[KY_EnviroGuy]

17. Republicans would have us sacrifice all our values and morals for a single job.

I'm amazed at how they have distorted America's perceptions of many everyday English words, as if every single job is the be-all and end-all of our entire existence.

We must work toward a more sustainable means of existence beyond just any paycheck that comes along.

[Celerity]

18. +1000

[dansolo]

20. Won't other infrastructure projects mean more construction jobs?

There is nothing special about the Keystone project vis-a-vis jobs.

[KentuckyWoman]

21. He is both right and wrong.

He is right. 100 good paying union jobs might be lost in PA. 150 good paying union jobs created in another state or maybe elsewhere in PA.

People might have to train for the future jobs. They might have to move. As the leader of his union he can and should push for help to retrain and move his people to the new jobs or to take other local job options..

Simply complaining doesn't bring back a dying industry.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

24. "Those jobs were temporary." So? That's how construction employment works.

All jobs are temporary, if you think about it. It’s just that employers have different models of keeping employees on during work cycles.

[Kaleva]

25. The purpose of the pipeline is to reduce costs and increase profits for the oil companies.

The way the oil is being transported now, by truck and rail, employs a lot more people then what the pipeline, when completed, will.

[panader0]

26. My understanding is that jobs are being created during construction,

but after completion the pipeline will need a small crew of a few hundred to maintain.
The Canadian oil will be piped in 36" pipes across one of the USA's biggest aquifers
and the oil is sand oil. Sand oil is very corrosive and many leaks will result to US water
supplies. When the oil reaches the refineries in Texas, it will be sold to the highest bidder.
So what does the US benefit? Some temporary jobs. Not the oil profits (which would go
to corporate owners anyway), and all at the real risk of water pollution.
The way things are going, water will be worth more than oil in the future.

[Kaleva]

28. A better alternative would be to build a refinery in Canada.

[Historic NY]

32. They don't want to desecrate their land

with potential problems of having the pipeline that has to mix chemicals. to make the oil viscous