Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
The Culinary Union’s Pilar Weiss checks her cell phone after a union event Friday. Weiss said, as the public face of the union, criticism is inevitable.
Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2008 | 2 a.m.
2008 Caucus Coverage
- Caucus Guide: Biographies, Issues Overview and a how to caucus video.
- Political blog: Continuous updates
- Interactive: Candidate Selector and Trivia Game
- Caucus Locator: For Democratic locations, or GOP sites.
At A Glance: Tonight's Debate
Tonight’s Democratic debate begins at 6 at the Cashman Center Theatre, 850 North Las Vegas Blvd. The two-hour event will air live on MSNBC and will be rebroadcast with a Spanish-language translation on Telemundo at midnight. Both networks are owned by NBC.
The moderator is “NBC Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams. Joining him will be Tim Russert, host of NBC’s Sunday morning talk show “Meet the Press.” The format includes questions submitted by viewers.
Voter Breakdown & Contributions
See the interactive graphic »
More on the Candidates
- Hillary Clinton: Bio | Issues
- Slideshow: Clinton Sheetmetal
- Barack Obama: Bio | Issues
- Slideshow: Obama in Nevada
- John Edwards: Bio | Issues
Long-simmering tensions between Nevada’s largest union, Culinary Workers Local 226, and other state labor organizations have spilled over to presidential politics and are now playing a role in Saturday’s Democratic caucus.
The biggest divide is between the Culinary and the state’s second-largest union, the Nevada State Education Association, which has filed a lawsuit that would make it harder for Culinary members to vote.
Other unions are simply hustling with renewed vigor to muster support for opponents of the Culinary-backed candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. Some of those unions say they are motivated by a dual desire: to push their candidate to victory and to deal the Culinary an embarrassing blow.
Eight Nevada unions have endorsed New York Sen. Hillary Clinton. Four are backing former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. Three, including the Culinary, support Obama.
The rivalry among unions seeped into public view last week when the teachers union joined a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of nine at-large caucus sites on the Strip, which it says give Culinary members disproportionate sway. Those sites are intended to make caucusing more accessible to shift workers at casinos allowing them to participate without returning to designated caucus sites closer to their homes.
The lawsuit poked a figurative finger in the eye of the Culinary, which has 60,000 members.
This union-on-union conflict is unusual, but labor officials say it is part of a long-standing resentment of the Culinary fueled to some extent by its size and clout. Its drumbeat often drowns out the voice of other unions.
Still, some labor figures and Democratic insiders say the Culinary and its political director, Pilar Weiss, have alienated other unions with tactics they regard as bullying.
Culinary officials said the criticism is not unusual, especially when you are the biggest kid on the labor block. “The union movement has all kinds of differences,” said Culinary Secretary-Treasurer D. Taylor said. “I’m not surprised.”
Weiss echoed those comments.
“We’re committed to being part of a strong labor movement and if other people have a problem with our work, that’s their issue,” she said. “Nevada is a small state; people gossip.”
The Culinary is using the lawsuit to rally its members, calling the teachers union a tool of the Clinton campaign. The teachers union’s deputy executive director has personally endorsed Clinton, and the union’s political consultant is an adviser to Clinton’s state campaign chairman.
But the teachers’ lawsuit is only the most recent and public dust-up between the two unions.
In April, the teachers union, which has 28,000 members, planned a conference at the Peppermill hotel and casino in Reno. The union had commitments from Clinton and Edwards to appear.
A week before the conference, the Culinary expressed concerns that the Peppermill was nonunion and suggested an alternative: hold the event nearly four miles away at a union property.
The teachers union decided that arrangement wouldn’t work and canceled the event rather than pick a fight with the Culinary.
Last fall, when the teachers proposed a ballot initiative to raise the state tax on gaming, the Culinary declined to take a position. The teachers union felt the Culinary was putting its relationship with the casino industry ahead of the labor community’s best interests.
The teachers are not alone in their resentment.
Minutes after the Service Employees International Union Nevada, which represents 17,500 health care and public sector workers, decided last week to endorse Obama, a union board member suggested announcing the choice at a news conference with the Culinary Union.
That idea was quickly shot down by others on the board. Beating the Culinary was important.
Union activists and Democratic insiders apart from the teachers union and SEIU say such resentment stems from what they see as Weiss’ brass-knuckle tactics.
“With the Culinary in general, and Pilar in particular, you can walk the picket line and avoid all the hotels that aren’t unionized, but if you do one thing wrong in their eyes, then the rest is never remembered,” said one Democratic consultant, who, like others interviewed for this story, agreed to speak only if kept anonymous because of possible reprisals from the Culinary.
Weiss said, as the public face of the union, criticism is inevitable.
“My job, the job of people before me and the job of people after me has always been to represent the membership and make sure our membership’s interests are met,” she said. “It’s always easy ... to make it personal rather than to acknowledge what’s really going on.”
The teachers union’s lawsuit is now bringing tensions to the surface.
The Nevada AFL-CIO, the state’s umbrella labor organization, is remaining officially neutral on the dispute, but many of its member unions are supporting the teachers.
“I hate that there are two labor organizations opposing one another right now,” said Greg Esposito, director of governmental affairs for the Plumbers and Pipefitters Union Local 525, which represents 3,300 workers in Southern Nevada. “At the same time, my members want to have their voice count just as much as anyone else’s.”
Coming from Esposito, an official whose union also endorses Obama, those comments may be telling.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which has endorsed Clinton, is also backing the teachers.
Larry Scanlon, the union’s national political director, said it was unlikely that AFSCME would join the lawsuit, but he added: “To the extent that someone else is challenging the process, God bless them.”
The union has deployed 100 paid employees in a member-to-member outreach effort, Scanlon said. It bused another 100 members to Nevada from California over the weekend.
Scanlon said AFSCME has been pushing the state Democratic Party to allow AFSCME members to act as election monitors at the at-large caucus sites. He questioned whether party officials would be able to manage the high level of expected turnout.
Bravo -- some courageous union leaders, members and backers are going public and taking on the ham-handed, self-interested Culinary Union and its bullying, mob-like tactics with its special caucus sites on the Strip that will have more than their share of convention delegates.
The Culinary is the most arrogant union local in America and goes far beyond what it claims its membership needs.
The Culinary seeks the help and support of other unions in solidarity when it needs them, yet will not give anything back and only focuses on itself. No wonder the teacher's union is fed up.
If you listen carefully to yourself, you'll notice how ignorant you sound. Where were you - where was the teacher's union when EVERYONE agreed to this arrangement? What's mob-like tactics is trying to change the rules of the game in the middle of the game - sheer dishonesty!
And by the way, members of the teachers union have written opposing the stupid lawsuit:
http://thepage.time.com/letter-from-neva...
Democracy will not be thretened in Nevada. Casino workers will not be disenfranchised. The Cullinary union will not be intimidated.
Si Se Puede! Yes We can!
Where was everyone on this before?
All year this was discussed and every labor organization in NV was on board with the Strip sites.
Every elected Democratic in Nevada was on board.
It's racist and Senator Harry Reid is to blame for letting this fester.
It sounds like the Culinary is very likely to intimidate workers who dont want to vote for Mr. Obama and is the last union anyone would want to oversee polling sites where the vote is not secret. These sites should be shut down and if not they need massive other Union monitoring to even attempt to ensure that workers know their rights going into these polling places.
These sites should never have been allowed and seem unconstitutional at best. People shouldnt vote at work in non secret voting. It is asking for a fixed vote.
Give this nation for the first and most-intelligent female Democratc President Nevada!
Let the people be free to vote for what they really think best for the nation. And, clearly, it is HILLARY CLINTON in 2008.
HILLARY, HILLARY, HILLARY!
from the Clinton for President Website - least there be any doubt who is behind the lawsuit to disenfranchise voters (who do not endorse her)
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea...
"7/16/2007
Leaders in Education Endorse Clinton for President
Hillary Clinton today received the endorsement of a group of Nevada officials known for their leadership in education -- longtime Clark County School District official and current State Senator Joyce Woodhouse, Nevada System of Higher Education Regents Cedric Crear and Thalia Dondero, and Nevada State Education Association (NSEA) Deputy Executive Director Debbie Cahill."
"These four great leaders -- Joyce, Cedric, Thalia and Debbie -- bring diverse community experiences and networks to our campaign," said Clinton Nevada Chair Rory Reid. "They share Senator Clinton's commitment to making our education system strong and accessible at all levels, so that every American can fulfill his or her potential. We are extremely gratified for their support."
Nevada State Education Association is the Plantiff in the suit --
we just went through 7 years of not taking responsibility ---
Let's move on
Obama '08
While the protestations of those filing the lawsuit appear disingenuous in light of its timing, I must ask why is the voice of the strips’ shift employees more important than the voice of all the other Nevadans who must also work on Saturday.
This entire caucus concept is a suspect. Essentially, if a candidate does not have enough bodies to be viable, those carcasses become fair game to the vultures of the more successful candidates.
Let us bully you for your vote!
Democracy in action? How about a national primary for all of the states held on the same day!
On what basis does the teachers union really have a legitimate complaint, given that caucuses have traditionally been held at schools? Don't their union employees get the advantage of having higher average caucus participation too? Hasn't that given them the very same kind of advantage for years that the casino workers are now being accused of wanting? Should they be forced to stop hosting caucuses at schools?
Let's face it... some union or another will always have an advantage in participation under the caucus system. And yet, none of these people sueing today even made a peep when the changes in caucusing were first suggested!
What we're seeing here are Clinton supporters trying to disenfranchise a ton of Nevadans, especially minorities. Really, there are so many Nevadans near the Strip, it makes sense to allow them to caucus.
This is nothing new. Hillary's campaign surpressed voters in New Hampshire too.
See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/...
Democrats need to speak out against such behavior, because what Hillary's campaign is doing is starting to look like something out of Karl Rove's playbook.
I sure hope that union workers, latinos, and black voters remember that it was Hillary Clinton who did her best to surpress their votes when they vote in California, New Mexico, etc.
This is not a third world country or petty dictatorship. Nevada is contributing to the national discourse on choosing our next President and should follow the laws of the land--especially one-person, one-vote. However things reached the point where they are now at is moot, this mess needs to be undone and let everyone vote equally at the legally established causus locations so that everyone has equal opportunity to vote. If the union is so concerned about their member's participation, why don't they ask the casinos to close or let them have a few hours off?
Si Se Puede shows his/her profound ignorance above "Where were you - where was the teachers union when EVERYONE agreed to this arrangement?"
A small group of people cannot agree to a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, or its one man one vote rule, or the Nevada Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, or the Nevada election code...and bind the rest of the voters in Nevada to that agreement. Whether the unlawful conduct of the parties who have 'agreed' was because they are well intentioned, or because they are evil and manipulative, it doesn't matter.
Saying "EVERYONE agreed" is like a bunch of fat, white cracker Democrats in the 1960's, running political organizations in Mississippi and agreeing to a set of rules to lessen the voting power of the black voters in the county...then whining when the Justice Department tries to enforce the Constitution.
I agree that every Nevadan should be able to vote.
That said, I don't think it's fair to attack the Culinary Union, just because they've worked hard to help their members be able to participate politically.... they're *SUPPOSED* to advocate for their member's rights, and they're not getting anything special that the Teachers Union doesn't already have, essentially.
This whole thing really shows part of the ugly nature of humanity, in that some people always view the relatively modest rights of someone else as an imposition on their own, rather than as progress towards greater rights for all. And when it comes to voting, we *ALL* should have rights. We should be glad, not resentful, that more people are able to participate in elections, and we should work towards the day when everyone who wants to vote can vote.
Even the way the Sun positioned the argument "Culinary vs. everyone else in labor spat" is obviously false, because most Nevadans -- and most unions -- support the right of the Culinary Union members to vote. The Sun seems to want to make this a confrontation, but even the teachers are against their own union on this issue.
"If the union is so concerned about their member's participation, why don't they ask the casinos to close or let them have a few hours off?"
Because, the casinos like making money, and they've sided with and contributed to Hillary Clinton's campaign, presumably because they believe that they'll make even more money later because of their support.
See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/14... for details.
If the casinos weren't biased on their decision, they might see this situation as a good PR opportunity to show Nevadans how much they care... but they already gave Hillary lots of their money and support, so you can pretty much count on them to screw over their employees and keep them working, should the courts decide not to throw out this fraudulent lawsuit.
It's nothing personal... it's just good business.
"Saying "EVERYONE agreed" is like a bunch of fat, white cracker Democrats in the 1960's..."
**SPITTAKE!**
So, you're arguing that allowing people to vote is the same as an organized attempt to prevent people from voting?!
You're not just cynical... you're certifiable!
The fact remains that the Teacher's Union *DID* have the opportunity to complain about the changes. If it was such a big issue, they could have mobilized their members, and got them involved in the process too. Instead, they actually played a role in creating and approving these changes... and now they don't want them, presumably because Clinton wasn't endorsed by the union.
The Clinton's are masters at pitting everyone against each other and bringing out the worst. It's obvious what would happen to the country should they get control.
Si Se Puede! Yes We can!
SI SE PUEDE!!!!!!! YES WE CAN!!!!!!!!!!!
The lawsuit filed by Clinton allies in Nevada against planned "at-large" caucusing Jan. 19 on the Las Vegas Strip is beginning to look a lot like voter suppression. As we know, the plan was drawn up and approved unanimously early last year by the Nevada Democratic Party leadership, with input from the presidential campaigns, to enable caucusing by Strip workers unable to leave work to caucus in their home precincts. Indeed the plan's creators include several of those who are now plaintiffs against it. What changed their minds? Barack Obama's endorsement Jan.9 by the 60,000-member Las Vegas Culinary Workers' Union changed their minds. When the plan was approved, Hillary Clinton was presumed to be the "inevitable" Democratic frontrunner. Iowa changed all that, and Obama's subsequent endorsement by the culinary workers has brought a Clinton win in Nevada into serious question. Since it is largely members of this union who would be caucusing in the casinos, the plan is clearly no longer in Clinton's best interests. Hence the lawsuit against the plan, filed just two days after the Obama endorsement and scarcely a week before the caucus by Clinton allies from the leadership of the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA), on the grounds that it would be unfair to workers in other areas. Why didn't they think it was unfair earlier? After all, the plan was approved nearly a year ago in the very name of fairness, to enable participation by those who would otherwise be unable to caucus. The answer is simple: Because the lawsuit has nothing whatsoever to do with fairness, and everything to do with stacking the deck in favor of Hillary Clinton. The Clintons themselves are not official parties to the suit, but both Hillary and Bill Clinton have spoken in support of it despite the fact that their campaign and others were included in the at-large caucus plan from its inception. They, like their friends in the NSEA, have had more than ample time to consider and reconsider the plan, but appear to have deemed it unfair only since the culinary workers endorsed Obama. While the judge in this case obviously has every reason in the world to throw it out of court, I don't expect that even if it prevails the culinary workers will allow it to prevent their members' caucusing. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised to see chartered buses from the union shuttling members between the Strip and their home precincts to caucus, a lot of pressure on Strip employers to comply, and a lot of anger at the Clintons and their allies for this seedy attempt to change the rules at the last minute. The whole affair seems likely indeed to do the Clintons far more harm than good in Nevada; and as we know, what happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas.
How many NSEA members will be working on a Saturday, anyway?
The spin is on.
The establishment, the newspapers, the politicians, the unions, all endorsed Clinton, oops!!
No one expected the Culinary Workers to endorse Obama. Here's what Obama had to say about the lawsuit. I can't say it much better. Obama addressed the lawsuit head-on: “Look, the caucus structure was agreed to by every major player in the Democratic Party here in Nevada and was negotiated by the major players in the Democratic National Committee. Six days before the caucus is taking place, some of the people who were connected to setting up this very structure are now filing suit, trying to change the rules. It’s hard not to draw the conclusion that people were unhappy about the outcome of the Culinary Union endorsement process and now people are trying to fix it. In the process it is disenfranchising dishwashers and bartenders who work hard and should be able to participate in their democracy.”
It is my understanding that the rules unfairly weight the votes of voters in at-large counties. However, this is no more unfair than the super delegates that the Democratic Party created. Voters don’t choose the 842 unpledged “super-delegates” who comprise nearly 40 percent of the number of delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination.
The category includes Democratic governors and members of Congress, former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former vice president Al Gore, retired congressional leaders such as Dick Gephardt, and all Democratic National Committee members, some of whom are appointed by party chairman Howard Dean.
Get to know the candidates, don't get caught up in the spin!!
IN MY OPINION, THE ONLY FAIR RECOURSE TO INSURE EACH AMERICAN GETS HIS OR HER VOTE IN PRIMARY/CAUCUS STATES IS TO HAVE A FEDERAL MANDATE THAT EACH WORKING PERSON BE ALLOWED PAID TIME OFF WORK TO GO VOTE. MORE POLLING/CAUCUS SITES WOULD HELP EXPEDIATE THE PROCESS. THE PROBLEM WITH CAUCUSES IS THAT THE TIME TO VOTE IS VERY LIMITED. NO ONE SHOULD BE DENIED THEIR VOTE. THIS WHO THING SHOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT MORE CLEARLY IN THE BEGINNING. ONCE AGAIN WE, "LIVE AND LEARN." HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT!
So let me get this straight. The format for the caucus was agreed upon by EVERYONE in early 2007. Now that Hillary didn't get the culinary union endorsement, there is a problem? We don't need any more of this type of "leadership". I hope that everyone who votes will think about were we need to go after GWB and who can really effect change.
Caucuses are a sham and force people to vote who they don't want to out in the open out of fear. This Union is going to put the strong arm out and intimidate workers who do not want to vote for Barack. They don't want Barack they want Hillary and it's a shame they will be intimidated.
Caucus should end and primaries only.
Hillary Clinton 08!!!!!
Vegas has a law to allow workers paid time off to vote in their neighborhood. 1/2 mile is one hour and over is 2 hours off. This Union is cheap and hope workers realize they aren't being allowed state law time off to vote.
Hillary Clinton 08!!!!!!!!!
It should have been a precondition of these at large precincts that any union with members able to participate in these caucuses had to remain neutral.
Caucuses are stupid for many, many reasons, but where was the Clinton campaign 9 months ago when it looked like Culinary might endorse them? And what is the point of this lawsuit but to suppress the turnout of union members? It's not like teachers will have a hard time voting on Saturday.
Why now? Why only after the Culinary endorsed Obama?
This is the most transparent political ploy of this race so far.
The casino caucus sites are not necessary and are clearly undemocratic. Consider Nevada Revised Statues 293.463 that requires employers to give PAID time off for employees to vote: "Nevada Employees are allowed one to three hours on election days to vote if they do not have "sufficient" free time outside working hours, depending on the distance between work and the polling site. Employees must apply for time prior to Election Day. Employers may designate the specific time employees may take."
This is absurd.
The Clintons want to win, so they KEEP OUT the people who don't want to vote for them. I wouldn't even put voter fraud out of the equation.
SHOW THESE PEOPLE THAT YOU MATTER.
VOTE FOR OBAMA, he is the ONLY candidate.
Trust your heart.
The Clinton are masters of division.
I believe nothing coming from the teacher's union.
When they seriously take on NCLB and what it has done to the value of a teacher, then I will start believing them.
Does this lawsuit attempt to suppress voter turnout or increase it? The answer is obvious. Who stands to benefit from the voter suppression? Hillary Clinton. People really need to wake up to what the Clintons are about. They are for the Clintons first and foremost. If they are willing to suppress voting to gain advantage, what other core American principles are they willing to abrogate for personal gain? Are these really the kind of people you want running the country?
How is Equal Protection Voter Suppression?
If Nevada Democrats are going to provide workers at the Strip greater access to voting than voters at other work places, then that is a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution.
Further, if Nevada Democrats are going to grant greater or different weight to votes cast at the 9 Strip Precincts, then that is a violation of the principal of one person one vote.
Just because a lawsuit has a political motive does not mean the case is without merit. The case should prevail.
Note: I support Edwards and voted already in California.
As a labor lawyer who represents unions, don't you know that Clinton and
Obama are the corporate candidates? If you want someone who will fight
for you as working people, Edwards is the real deal. Why don't you give him
a win in Nevada so that he can beat Clinton who is ahead here in California?
Please check it out. Thanks.
The LVS's reporters are being a bit dishonest in framing this law suit as a union-vs-union dispute. It is a dispute between a union and the state and national democratic leadership - it stabs a knife in the heart of the democratic party's power to craft its primary selection process as it sees fit and has implications that reach far beyond Nevada. Of course some people (generally those aligned with and sympathetic to the Teachers Union) want readers to see it as a local union-vs-union issue (which is why I question the honesty of LVS' reporters over the last several days as they have clouded the true nature of the dispute through mischaracterizations).
If the teachers are right about equal protection in the Nevada primary, not only are all state selection processes open to equal protection suits, but what is to be said about Superdelegates like Bill Clinton whose votes cast at the national convention count for far more than the votes cast by common citizens in state primaries (What about "One person, one vote", Mr. President?). Clinton has far more superdelegate endorsements than Obama so far - if the teachers are right, and Clinton wins the nomination by a slim margin of delegates based primarily on her superdelegate advantage, is not another equal protection suit in the works challenging the power of superdelegate votes to swing the selection process? Even further, what about the electoral college itself - a system that distorts the "one-person, one-vote" into a strange proxy system that gives the presidency to candidates that don't win the popular vote? The logic exhibited by the law suit, by Bill Clinton's cheap shots in the press, and by the comments on this page are a slippery slope that is going to require some creative acrobatics by our courts to avoid falling down... that is, of course, assuming our courts will be persuaded by whatever constitutional arguments the Teachers could make with a straight face.
Culinary institutes offer students several degree, diploma, and certificate programs. Most of these schools provide quality culinary education to the students so that they get a respectable entry level position in culinary industry.
http://www.culinaryschoolsprograms.com/