Teamsters’ non-endorsement exposes internal divisions

Photo Credit: Getty

The announcement that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters will not endorse a presidential candidate this cycle is a sign of the internal struggles within the union movement. While many in the Teamster leadership favor the left, many in the rank and file still lean rightwards. That led to an impasse over whom to back.

The Teamsters are simultaneously one of the largest unions in the nation with 1.3 million members and something of an outlier in the broader labor movement, which has usually leaned leftwards. Historically, the Teamsters have been one of the most pro-Republican unions, having endorsed Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and George H.W. Bush in 1988. That streak ended when they backed Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992.

After that, the Teamsters appeared to re-align itself with the leftward aims of the broader movement. It co-founded a coalition called Change to Win with Service Employees International Union, UNITE HERE, and other strongly progressive unions in 2005. The Teamsters quietly exited the coalition last year.

It was thus not that surprising that Teamsters President Sean O'Brien asked for and received a speaking slot at the GOP convention. His appearance was a nod to fact that Trump had significant support among his members. Republican candidate Donald Trump won 42 percent of union households in 2016 and 40 percent in 2020. Trump managed this despite a record on labor issues that wasn't progressive. His appeal to union voters seems to be based mostly on cultural issues.

O'Brien wanted to secure good relations should there be a second Trump administration. "As a negotiator, I know that no window or door should ever be permanently shut," he told the convention.

The Teamsters boss tried to walk a narrow line, giving a rousing speech without actually endorsing Trump's bid. He instead tried to find common ground with the GOP faithful on economic issues. O'Brien praised Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley (R) for opposing "right to work" laws, not bothering to explain what the laws do: ensure that workers cannot be forced to join or otherwise support a union if they want to keep their job.

Even that qualified praise for Republicans was apparently a bridge too far. O'Brien requested a speaking spot at the Democratic convention but was snubbed. The Democrats apparently saw the mere fact that he appeared at the GOP convention as tantamount to an endorsement.

Many within the Teamsters hierarchy were irritated as well, claiming it harmed their ability to work with other unions. "Your repeated dalliances with Trump have made the already difficult task of our [get-out-the-vote] program activists damn near impossible," said Josh Zivalich, president of Teamsters Local 769 in Miami, said in a letter to O'Brien, according to the Wall Street Journal. "The damage is done."

"If you look at their voting records, it's zero pro-labor stuff," John Palmer, a Teamsters vice president who plans to challenge O'Brien in the union's next election in 2026, told the Journal.

Most things that union leaders want from Washington, like passing the Protecting the Right To Organize Act, are focused on giving those leaders more power to force the union rank and file to get in line. That appears not to be a big priority for the workers themselves, however.

The upshot of this is the Teamsters were so divided internally that they either didn't have the votes to reach a consensus on an endorsement, or, if they did, that the resulting endorsement, no matter which side it went to, would have been so controversial among the members that it wasn't worth the trouble.

O'Brien's willingness to extend an olive branch to a prospective Trump administration revealed this fissure in the Teamsters. The big question is whether the Teamsters are truly that different or whether other unions have large enough pools of Trump supporters inside them that they run the risk of similar schisms.