SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
unions
How Can the Dem Win Back Working-Class Voters? Run Union Candidates
A new report finds that running and electing candidates from the labor movement is one of the most viable and under-explored paths available to both unions and the Democratic Party.
Mar 14, 2026
The Democratic Party’s slow shift away from the working class undoubtedly contributed to its recent electoral defeats. Reconnecting with the party’s foundational working-class base is essential for its survival, and a new report from the Center for Working-Class Politics, Arizona State University’s Center for Work and Democracy, and Jacobin shows that getting more union members and leaders on the ballot could provide a path to doing just that.
The Democratic Party’s loss in 2024 has sparked a wave of soul-searching about how the party can recover support groups of voters they could previously take for granted, such as Black and Latino men. Like so many of the Democrats’ previously assumed voting blocs, union workers are clearly no longer an easy win for the party, with more than 40% of union workers reporting voting for Donald Trump in 2024.
Our new report—which analyzes congressional candidates from 2010 to 2022, union campaign finance data, and interviews with current and former elected officials with union backgrounds—finds that running and electing candidates from the labor movement is one of the most viable and under-explored paths available to both unions and the Democratic Party.
Several key findings illustrate the current state of union candidacy and suggest how the Democratic Party and unions could change their approach to achieve further success in future elections.
Our report identifies all congressional candidates between 2010 and 2022 and reveals that only 5% have any union connection.
First, unions’ donations to candidates now comprise a much smaller slice of total campaign donations. They’ve fallen fivefold, from nearly 15% of total party contributions in the late 1990s to less than 3% by 2022—not because unions are giving less but because individual donations have risen massively.
In recent years, when unions do donate, they’re inclined to play it safe, giving mostly to incumbents rather than pro-union challengers. And in the rare instances they back challengers, they typically back whoever looks most likely to win, leaving the shaping of the candidate pool to the Democratic Party.
Second, candidates with union backgrounds advocate more strongly for the working class—both on the campaign trail and in office—than those without union backgrounds. As candidates, they speak more to worker issues, and as representatives, they advocate more progressive economic legislation compared with their non-union colleagues—regardless of party.
Further, our interviews with candidates and elected officials from union backgrounds highlight that experience they’ve gained specifically through their union involvement gives them an advantage in their knowledge of workplace issues, credibility to speak on labor matters, and an ability to build coalitions and be effective policymakers.
With their ongoing, already established institutional relationships with unions, they’re able to center workers’ rights in their policy plans (strengthening minimum wage laws, paid leave and benefits, worker safety regulations, and card-check laws) and keep open, fluid channels of communication with organized labor. Said relationships also give them a leg up in grassroots organization, inspiring higher turnout and deeper commitment from union members.
Third, despite their strategic value, union candidates and elected officials are not common. Our report identifies all congressional candidates between 2010 and 2022 and reveals that only 5% have any union connection.
That scarcity is not inevitable. Unions have the financial resources, organizing infrastructure, and institutional reach to actively grow a candidate pipeline if they choose to deploy them. Indeed, in critical open-seat races, unions already donate more to Democratic candidates with union backgrounds than to other Democrats.
In addition to donations, unions can lend their organizing infrastructure to directly power union-member electoral campaigns through candidate recruitment, member canvassing, and early financial backing. They can also invest in labor-led candidate schools to build a deep and sturdy pipeline, demystifying the political process for working-class candidates and increasing both the number of union candidates and their electoral success.
The report illustrates two state-level initiatives that show us what can work when unions take a more proactive approach in building a pipeline of candidates. New Jersey’s AFL-CIO Labor Candidate Program has resulted in over 1,300 election victories with a 76% win rate over 20 years. Alaska’s Arthur A. Allman Labor Candidate School has already seen eight of its trainees elected to office since its 2022 inauguration.
The common ground between these two programs: They handle the training themselves rather than leaving it to party consultants and approach candidate development as a sustainable investment for long-term strategy rather than something reserved for election cycles.
Our analysis shows that unions already have an asset they’re not using. Though their membership and formal leverage have weakened, public trust in labor unions has reached its highest point in 50 years, at a time when public confidence in almost all other political structures has essentially collapsed.
Gallup polls show public approval of unions is at its highest rate in over 60 years, with an average of about 70% of Americans expressing their support for unions last year. A GBAO poll conducted on behalf of the AFL-CIO in 2023 found that 88% of Americans under 30 view unions favorably—a record-breaking level of support.
American faith in union politics is there. Will organized labor take up the mantle?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Labor Needs a Declaration of Political Independence
No matter how you slice the demographics, aside from Democratic and Republican Party operatives, a new working-class political party independent of the Democrats and Republicans is really popular.
Feb 23, 2026
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any [part] of Government [—including its political parties—] becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new [parties], laying [their] foundation on such principles and organizing [their] powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
It’s not a secret: About 45% of labor union members voted for President Donald Trump in 2024. In unions with fewer minority workers the percentage was substantially higher. More importantly, most union members no longer identify with the Democratic Party. In fact, they are downright hostile to it. In our YouGov poll of 3,000 voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, 70% held negative views of the Democrats.
Why so much hostility? Very few respondents said anything about wokeness or immigration. Much of the bitterness was related to the Democrats failing to live up to their promises and losing touch with everyday people. My research also shows that mass layoffs, especially those caused by trade with China and Mexico after North American Free Trade Agreement, have soured voters on the Democrats.
That leaves progressive union leaders with the difficult task of lining up their members for the candidates they think will represent the political interests of their members—which, because of the Republicans’ overwhelming antipathy to organized labor, almost always better align with the Democrats. Despite, it should be said, their failings. For the fall midterms this year, union leaders will be 100% in support of the Democrats, as they hope to check the power of Trumpism. How can they do that effectively given all this negativity?
A different and I think more promising approach is to open up a discussion about alternative politics and seriously explore the prospects of building a new political party of working people.
The usual approach involves various procedures that eventually lead the membership to the Democrats. One union, for example, holds meetings during which the rank-and-file defines an agenda. The leadership then uses that agenda to evaluate candidates, who conveniently all turn out to be Democrats. Another union conducts educational programs that are, one way or another, designed to help the membership understand why the Democrats are more favorable to the working class than Republicans. This isn’t hard or even that manipulative, but rarely do these methods effectively appeal to those who disdain the Dems.
The preferred option for many unions is to avoid political discussions entirely for fear the ensuing debate might tear the union apart—pitting MAGA and non-MAGA members against each other. Better to duck and cover, hold onto the solidarity you have, and hope the storm will soon pass.
A different and I think more promising approach is to open up a discussion about alternative politics and seriously explore the prospects of building a new political party of working people. Union leadership can easily justify such an undertaking as a long-term project necessary to mobilize working-class political power and find solidarity around the issues that matter most to all working people.
The Hunger for Independence
Polling shows that such an effort would be well received. Overall, 57% of the respondents in our YouGov survey support the idea of an independent political organization for workers. Here are the results for union-oriented voters:
| Support | Oppose | Not Sure | |
| Currently union member | 58% | 16% | 25% |
| Former union member | 59% | 21% | 19% |
| Not a union member but would support efforts to form a union at my workplace | 80% | 8% | 12% |
(The overwhelming support from those who want to join a union should get the attention of union leaders for whom organizing new members is of the highest priority.)
The idea is even attractive to 2024 Trump voters: 40% support a new party, as do 42% of those who identify as Republicans.
No matter how you slice the demographics, aside from Democratic and Republican Party operatives, a new political party independent of the Democrats and Republicans is really popular.
That’s why opening up a discussion about how to build a new working-class party stands a decent chance of increasing solidarity among the various political groups in the union rank-and-file. It allows leadership to respond to what the workers really want—a party that puts their needs and interests at its center rather than adopting watered-down policies designed to please billionaire donors.
And it makes room for some very frank discussions:
“Look, I understand that many of you no longer want to vote for Democrats. You want a new party independent of the Democrats and Republicans. But until we build that new party, there are some solid pro-labor candidates that we need to support if we’re to have any chance of passing labor law reform and protecting jobs. We are pressuring the Democrats and the Republicans to run more working-class candidates. Meanwhile, let’s start the process of building a new working-class party. We can do both right now.”
If unions seriously committed resources to building, or at least exploring, an independent political formation, the political credibility of union leaders would likely increase. It also would create a plausible, easy to understand political argument: Long term, we want a working-class party that represents our interests and needs. Short-term, we support candidates who represent our interests and needs!
I see three main problems with charting this new course. The first is that many union leaders are deeply entwined with the Democratic Party leadership. They have personal ties. They attend common events. They see the world similarly. The idea of a new party feels like a betrayal. As one labor leader told me, “These are the only political friends we have.”
Wouldn’t it be better to build with the membership a vision that puts working people in the center of the economy rather than as an afterthought of trickle-down two-party politics?
The second obstacle is one of resources and bandwidth. Union leaders have their hands full. They are always dealing with difficult employers, complex contracts, union organizing drives, and internal union problems. Adding a new alternative politics project is likely to be seen as beyond their capacities.
The third issue is the fear of being a spoiler—that criticizing Democrats, let alone starting a new party for workers, would take votes away from the Democrats and elect Republicans. That’s what most labor leaders believe happened in 2000 when Ralph Nader ran for president. They hold him accountable for taking enough votes away from Al Gore in Florida to throw the state and the election to George Bush.
While the spoiler issue may be valid in presidential contests and in closely contested races for Congress, it is not relevant in the 130 congressional districts in which the Republicans usually win by 25% or more. In these districts there is effectively no Democratic Party to spoil. And it’s in those districts that a new working-class party is most needed. It would only take a handful of congressional victories for working-class candidates to gain the controlling votes in a closely divided House of Representatives.
Of course, running 130 congressional campaigns is no small task, but there are smaller, more doable first steps that could help union leaders with their political dilemma. They could start by holding workshops with their local leaders and rank-and-file to discuss the need for a new independent political organization for union members and indeed all working people. Such discussions would allow members to air their grievances while signaling that the leadership is willing to listen and forge a new independent path.
Such workshops will be part of a new National Worker Educational Campaign for Independent Politics that my colleagues and I are launching this spring.
Many say that forging a new party is unrealistic and that we are stuck with the Democrats. But to me that seems likely to further alienate much of the union membership.
Wouldn’t it be better to rekindle political hope by opening up discussion?
Wouldn’t it be better to let memberships discuss their needs and aspirations and how they would like to relate to politics?
Wouldn’t it be better to build with the membership a vision that puts working people in the center of the economy rather than as an afterthought of trickle-down two-party politics?
It sure beats hoping that the MAGA membership just fades away.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No Concessions': San Francisco Teachers End 4-Day Strike After Winning Raise, Family Healthcare
“This historic strike built an unbreakable solidarity across our city, among families, students, educators, and community," said San Francisco's teachers union.
Feb 13, 2026
San Francisco public school teachers and their union celebrated Friday after negotiating a tentative agreement for a new contract with higher pay and fully funded family healthcare, ending a four-day walkout that was the city's first educator strike in nearly half a century.
United Educators of San Francisco (UESF) said its bargaining team reached a two-year tentative deal with the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) at around 5:30 am local time Friday. The 120 public schools that were closed due to the walkout by around 6,000 teachers are set to reopen for classes next Wednesday.
"This historic strike built an unbreakable solidarity across our city, among families, students, educators, and community," UESF said in a statement. "This strike has made it clear what is possible when we join together and fight for the stability in our schools that many have said was out of our reach."
The tentative agreement, which follows 11 months of bargaining, includes the union's main demand for fully funded health coverage for dependents; raises of between 5-8.5%; caseload reductions for special educators; sanctuary protections for students and staff; limits on the use of artificial intelligence; preservation and expansion of the Stay Over program for unhoused students and their families; and better working conditions for librarians, substitute teachers, counselors, and other staff.
“By forcing SFUSD to invest in fully funded family healthcare, special education workloads, improved wages, sanctuary and housing protections for San Francisco families, we’ve made important progress towards the schools our students deserve,” said UESF president Cassondra Curiel “This contract is a strong foundation for us to continue to build the safe and stable learning environments our students deserve.”
SFUSD Superintendent Maria Su said in a statement: "I recognize that this past week has been challenging. Thank you to the SFUSD staff, community-based partners, and faith and city leaders who partnered with us to continue centering our students in our work every day."
"I am so proud of the resilience and strength of our community," Su added. "This is a new beginning, and I want to celebrate our diverse community of educators, administrators, parents, and students as we come together and heal."
However, Su also warned that “we do not have enough funds to pay for this year and the next two years," citing SFUSD's over $100 million budget deficit.
The striking teachers enjoyed widespread support and solidarity across the city, including at a massive rally outside City Hall on Monday.
San Francisco’s first public school teachers strike in 47 years started today with picket lines across the city and a rally at Civic Center. Schools will remain closed on Tuesday. Read live updates: https://t.co/5iRAt8eWdu
📝: Ezra Wallach, @low___impact, @allaboutgeorge pic.twitter.com/KMylN2L3fU
— The San Francisco Standard (@sfstandard) February 10, 2026
San Francisco teachers cheered the tentative agreement—especially its coverage of 100% of premiums on family health plans, which run about $1,500 per month, beginning next January.
“That amount of money is life-changing to us,” Balboa High School English teacher Ryan Alias said during a Thursday press conference.
“If we had that in our pocket, we would be able to save for retirement,” added Alias, who has two children in SFUSD schools. "We would be able to save for college funds. We’d be able to save for student loans. We’d be able to pay for art classes for our kids. This is the thing that is going to keep educators in the city.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular