Unions Pouring Resources Into Nevada Caucus Fight

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/us/politics/13nevada.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: January 13, 2008

With Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama eager to win the Democratic caucuses in Nevada next Saturday, labor unions backing Mr. Obama are in a surprisingly intense, expensive fight with those supporting Mrs. Clinton.

Several pro-Clinton labor unions with small memberships in Nevada have thrown major resources into the state to counter pro-Obama unions with big memberships there. This has caused leaders of the pro-Obama unions to complain that one pro-Clinton union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, is bumping against the limits of the law by sending nearly 100 paid employees to Nevada to mobilize its roughly 3,000 members in the state.

Under federal rules, paid union campaign workers are limited to communicating with members of their own unions, although after their paid hours, they can, as volunteers, reach out to anyone.

Officials with two pro-Obama unions — the service employees with 17,500 members in Nevada, and the culinary union — questioned this week why the pro-Clinton union of state, county and municipal employees would need nearly 100 paid employees to work with just 3,000 union members.

“That would be the most intense member-to-member campaign I’ve heard of in the labor movement,” said D. Taylor, secretary-treasurer of Culinary Workers Local 226 in Las Vegas, a 60,000-member local — by far the state’s largest union — which endorsed Mr. Obama on Wednesday.

Larry Scanlon, the political director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said it made sense to have nearly 100 employees in Nevada because it is a large state, with much territory to cover. In addition, Mr. Scanlon said the paid political workers were needed to teach union members how the caucus process works. Only about 9,000 people participated in the 2004 caucuses, and the state’s Democratic Party is preparing for far higher numbers this year.

FULL story at link.

[Rageneau]

1. How come these unions are endorsing people in the first place?

When all the primary candidates support union goals, why don't unions stay neutral until the general election, when an endorsement might really make some difference to union workers?

By endorsing candidates during the primaries, these unions are contributing to the arguing and bickering and name-calling -- which inevitably weakens the Democrats' chance of winning the general election.

All four Democratic candidates offer ALL these unions everything they could want in terms of support. They are ALL friends of unions. No union has anything to fear from ANY of them.

So why are unions getting involved at this point? Why aren't they saving their powder (and money and energy) for the general election, when union members will actually have something important to vote for?

And FWIW, how could these unions to endorse one candidate over another in the first place? What criteria are they using?