Union was supposed to be Gephardt's base of support, and given his solid pro-union record in his congressional career, there was no reason to doubt otherwise. He'd earned that support, and notions of loyalty and fair play should've garnered him the full AFL-CIO endorsement.
Except that labor is changing. While some of the largest industrial unions dutifully lent their hand to the Gephardt effort, the new-line service unions were thinking a different game.
It wasn't the first time AFSCME abandoned the "union candidate" in favor of a more pragmatic choice. In 1992, McEntee turned his back on labor stalwarth Tom Harkin in favor of a governor from a small, non-union state -- Arkansas. History is about to repeat itself. Coldly pragmatic, the new(er) large service unions-- AFSCME and
SEIU -- are more interested in notions of electability (money, buzz, organization) than they are in mere loyalty. And in a way, why should they? If they play kingmaker, they will have a seat at the table. Their concerns will get a fair hearing inside a Dean administration.
That AFSCME and SEIU will team up is the labor story of the year. There is no way to underestimate the animosity between the two unions, who have battled each other for members and influence for years. Their ability to join forces bodes well for labor unity in the coming year (though the enigmatic Teamsters should be a wildcard if Gephardt loses, given their intense support for Gephardt and past flirtations with Bush).
But almost lost in the commotion was the UAW decision to leave all endorsements to the locals. The national organization will not endorse.
The UAW is the largest of the pure manufacturing unions, the largest of the anti-free-trade outfits. They should've been a given for Gephardt. The fact they didn't endorse must've elicited more than a stream of curses at Gep HQ.
And Gep needed them for Michigan, as the union is a powerhouse in that state. If the MI locals were going to cast their lot with Gephardt, it would've spurred the national organization to follow suit. The non-endorsement bodes ill for Gep's chances even at the local level (and he should get the support of Iowa's UAW).
That leaves the American Federation of Teachers and the Communication Workers of America as the largest uncommitted unions.
AFT is strongly pro-war, so Dean isn't a natural for their endorsement. However, Bush's War is increasingly unpopular, so who knows? But chances are they'll back someone other than Dean. Who that might be is still unclear.
CWA, on the other hand, is a battle between Dean and Gephardt. Gephardt was thought to have the union all sown up months ago, but Dean has made strong inroads amongst the rank and file. The union is now considered a toss-up.
As for the rest of the top unions, what will probably happen is a freezing of endorsements, with unions following UAW's lead and staying out of it. They want to endorse Gephardt out of loyalty, but they don't want to back someone they perceive as a weak bet. Dean flexed his muscle with money and ground organization, and the otherwise pro-Gephardt unions have blinked. Rather than stab Gep directly in the back and back someone they may not entirely trust, these unions are simply laying low. They will probably wait until early March and then endorse the presumptive nominee.