So-called ‘Right to Work’ laws were rolled out across multiple states and infiltration by the mob created a culture of union bureaucrats who were inept, racist, and disconnected from the majority of their membership, instead set on currying political favors and enriching themselves. Now comes a new case to the Supreme Court, customized and written specifically for the anti-union majority sitting on the bench, that could very well serve as the death knell for public sector labor unions, one of the last great bastions of union activity in a job market that is overwhelmingly non-union.

On September 4, 2015, plaintiffs in the case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association filed their petition with the Court. On page two, under ‘Questions Presented’, they ask two questions that come from the dreams of a free-market Libertarian:

1. Whether Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), should be overruled and public- sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment.
2. Whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech.

The power of those two questions may seem obscure to the uninitiated, but they are the death sentence for the public sector unions.

The first part to be understood is the meaning of Abood, a case that has underwritten public sector unions and their rights for a generation. In that case, a group of Michigan teachers filed suit and claimed their free speech rights were impinged on because the union was collecting dues to engage in activities they did not agree with, collective bargaining and political endorsements. The Court found in that case that dues collection for collective bargaining did not infringe on free speech and that, while there were issues regarding free speech and union endorsements of political campaigns, the plaintiffs had failed to properly articulate their differences with the union, thereby nullifying their complaint.

Now comes Friedrichs. In last year’s Harris v. Quinn, a case the public was distracted from by the concurrent Hobby Lobby decision, the ground was laid in a ruling that essentially gave a huge opening for a future case by Justice Alito, who wrote:

The Abood Court’s analysis is questionable on several grounds. Some of these were noted or apparent at or before the time of the decision, but several have become more evident and troubling in the years since then.

From there, he went through a litany of flaws that essentially defined what would be required of a future case to void Abood. The New York Times wrote then:

The majority in Harris saw things differently. Making workers pay anything to a union they oppose is in tension with their First Amendment rights — “something of an anomaly,” in the words of the majority. But the real anomaly lies in according dissenters a right to refuse to pay for the union’s services — services that cost money to deliver, and that put money in the pockets of all employees.
Once selected by a majority of workers in a bargaining unit, a union becomes the exclusive representative, with a duty to fairly represent all of them. That is the bedrock of our public and private sector labor laws.
Unless everyone is required to pay for those services, individual workers can easily become “free riders,” taking the benefits of collective representation without paying their fair share of the costs. Not only dissenters but any employee who wants to save a buck can “free ride.” The net result may be that the union cannot afford to represent workers effectively, and everyone suffers.

In plain terms, the unions would be prevented from garnishing wages to pay dues used for operational costs, instituting a nation-wide Right to Work regime. It would be the end of the public sector labor unions as we know it. And even though he wrote an opinion on marriage equality that is now being nationwide in wedding vows, Justice Kennedy is a staunch libertarian, having sided with the majority of Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts on Harris.

This is a decision that would have an impact as resounding as a thunderbolt. Almost every federal, state, and municipal employee is part of some union. Professors at Rhode Island College and University of Rhode Island are unionized. The janitors, cooks, and other staffers are likewise. Public school teachers, bus drivers, even the mail man is in a union. After decades of union-busting privatization efforts, the Court would be delivering the anti-union movement not just a gift but a platinum-and-diamond-encrusted victory crown. And because the only remaining unionized jobs are private, that would either result in a mass-privatization drive or a high employee turnover rate as middle-class employees with families retreat to the private sector for better jobs.

What result this would have on the coming election remains to be seen. Hillary Clinton has played a major role in the decline of labor unions in this country, though for reasons that can only be called sheer insanity, the AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka has indicated his refusal to back Bernie Sanders and has previously tampered down on union members involved in the Sanders campaign. While I have my own criticisms of Sanders that I am not shy about expressing, the Friedrichs case could prove to be the Hail Mary he needs to pull a miracle and sink Clinton come time for the all-important South Carolina primary, a heavily-African American state who most pundits think will halt Sanders for good. If Sanders were smart enough to make this into a campaign issue, he could create a few surprises still.

This Court decision may prove to be one of the most devastating in a generation, Dave Macaray at CounterPunch was not jesting when he wrote “It’s no exaggeration to say that for the American worker, “Friedrichs” could be as significant as Dred Scott.” But within the wreckage of a major defeat could lay the seeds for an American labor union renaissance. After decades of oafish leaders who make political decisions that benefit them more than workers, the American worker could turn a defeat into an opportunity to redefine unionism as we know it. The future is in their hands.

My colleague Steve Ahlquist previously posted a great story covering the two meetings on July 27 about the proposed construction of the taxpayer-subsidized stadium. One point that was made at the Providence meeting, worth expanding on here, is the issue of the construction trade unions, which have endorsed this project. This piece will make an effort to appeal to both the general membership and leadership of these unions, who will prove to be some of the most important allies in this struggle and, on the other hand, will perhaps be the make-or-break of this deal.

It is important to empathize with the membership, they are facing a massive drop in employment and job sites, with a huge percentage of the rank-and-file out of work. This project would create jobs for a large swathe of their members, something I do not begrudge them for.

But this is a decision I do not think they have properly contemplated. First, while the governor has previously eluded to a hiring push that would target minority workers, the current contractor participating in this project, Gilbane, has one of the worst records of minority hiring in the nation. That is an important issue to discuss because the disenfranchisement of minority workers is a vital one.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, this stadium could generate short-term gains on one project but may in fact kill development in the I-195 land in the near future. As Kate Bramson reported on May 2, any and all further construction hinges on a super-permit that would install a stormwater mitigation mechanism at the proposed open park.  Bramson wrote in that piece:

The master permit hinges on a plan to use parkland within the 195 district for stormwater mitigation. Builders are required to treat a percentage of stormwater on parcels they develop. However, if they can’t meet the entire stormwater requirement on a parcel, the master permit allows them to gain credit from the parkland’s treatment of stormwater.

Given the tides and ebbs of Rhode Island politics, this could end up killing future development on the I-195 corridor for up to five years. And on top of that, recall that the federal government also will need to be involved, prolonging the wait. That of course translates out to a much greater amount of time for unemployed union members to remain so. Between an extended waiting period and a traffic-clogging stadium, potential developers in the bio-med and education sectors might take their business elsewhere, keeping that land vacant for a very long time.

Bucking the trend and opposing an endorsement that has already been made by the union is always a tremendously problematic issue, no doubt. It takes courage, gumption, and being versed in the relevant documentary records so to make a cogent case. I would refer interested parties especially to this slideshow produced already by the I-195 Commission, an outline of proposed development by landscape architects that every taxpayer in the state already funded. Just to re-iterate, the state has already paid three times for this land.  First, we paid for the de-comissioning and demolition of the old I-195 highway. Second, we paid to have it zoned and developed by the federal government. Third, we paid for the aforementioned landscape architects and other planners to work out the schematics of the park.

If this ballpark scheme goes through, it will cost taxpayers another three times. First they will need to pay for the stadium’s construction. Second they will pay to re-design the sewer and highway system to accommodate the stadium. Third we need to re-develop another parcel of land as a park should the government refuse to accept the idea of a smaller park on the grounds of the stadium.

There is simply too much risk as opposed to reward in this idea and organized labor should rethink their position, not so to undermine their standing but to promote and improve their reputation. This week Boston Mayor Martin Walsh rejected the move to finance the 2024 Olympics with Beantown tax monies, causing their bid for the Games to be voided. That move has probably bought Walsh another term in office and could very well give him a future bid for higher office. The unions in Rhode Island would be wise to take such logic into consideration. To be clear, I am no opponent of labor unions, I am a member of one and was an eyewitness to the Illinois Caterpillar strike in the 1990’s. But this project, should it come to pass due to labor’s support, will be seen by many as a black mark on its record and will be fantastic fare for union busters on both sides of the aisle.

Union rep Brooke Reese told me that negotiations with the hospital are “not so great.” A press release from the union says that hospital management has rejected a union proposal that states, “providing quality care to patients and their families is the top objective of the Hospital and that poor working conditions, inadequate staffing levels, inadequate supplies and improper equipment undermine patient care.”

Lifespan has also rejected the union’s proposals on “job security, fair wages and benefits,” which the union calls “a slap in the face to every Rhode Island Hospital employee and every person in the community that is concerned about good jobs and quality patient care.”

To bring attention to their cause workers borrowed a large inflatable “Fat Cat” from New York Teamsters 804. It was an attention getting prop, and it had the effect of slowing rush hour traffic around the hospital more than usual. The Fat Cat is seen wringing the neck of a UPS worker, but for the purposes of yesterday’s picket we’re being asked to picture the strangled worker wearing hospital scrubs.

Jesse Strecker, of RI Jobs With Justice, said in a statement, “Lifespan isn’t hearing workers and the community’s concerns at the negotiating table, so we are coming together to raise our voices in front of the hospital.”

During the picket Strecker led a community delegation consisting of representatives from labor unions, community organizations and student groups as well as religious leaders in an attempt to deliver an “Open Letter” to the hospital administrators, but were prevented from doing so by hospital security. After much negotiation the letter was taken, with the promise of delivery, by the head of security, but no one from the delegation was allowed inside the hospital and no one representing the hospital addressed the delegation in any meaningful way.

Beth Bailey, Senior Media Relations Officer for Rhode Island Hospital, said in a statement that the most recent proposal from the union “does not make economic sense for the hospital or its patients, as our state continues to struggle economically” and that the hospital is “offering a fair contract that continues to provide wage increases, retirement, health care and other benefits.” The statement did not address community concerns about patient care.

The union maintains that Lifespan paid its “ten highest paid executives” more than $16.6 million in its last fiscal year, an average of $1 million more in compensation “than the average earned by CEOs of nonprofit hospitals nationally.”

According to Local 251, “As a non-profit entity, Lifespan and RI Hospital are supposed to put the healthcare needs of the community first. Unfortunately, management has taken cost cutting measures, causing shortages in equipment and staff that undermine patient care.”

Literature at the Speakout quoted a nurse, Aliss Collins, saying, “When we are understaffed, I cover 56 patients in three units. It’s not right for the patients or the employees.” There was a story at the Speakout of another nurse who was forced to buy her own equipment for measuring oxygen levels, because the hospital did not provide it.

Obamacare has allowed Lifespan/RI Hospital to take in an additional $33 million in net revenue last year, because so many Rhode Islanders are now covered under Medicaid. Yet rather than invest this money in patient care, Lifespan pays its “ten highest paid executives” more than $16.6 million in its last fiscal year, an average of $1 million more in compensation “than the average earned by CEOs of nonprofit hospitals nationally,” according to the union.

At the same time, hospital employees such as single mom Nuch Keller make $12.46 an hour with no healthcare coverage. Keller’s pay does not even cover her rent. She regularly works 40 hours or more per week, yet Lifespan continues to pay her as a part-time employee. And in case you missed it, Keller works at a non-profit hospital, and receives no healthcare.

The Speakout was intended to show community support for the workers of RI Hospital, and was attended by Representatives David Cicilline and Jim Langevin, as well as General treasurer Seth Magaziner. There were also representatives from many other unions and community groups such as Jobs with Justice, Unite Here! and Fuerza Laboral. Many religious leaders, including Father Joseph Escobar and Rev Duane Clinker, were on hand to show support.

It was hard not to feel that something new was happening at the Speakout. The level of community support and solidarity made one feel as if a union resurgence were imminent, which many feel is necessary if obscene inequality is to be combated.

It was Duane Clinker who helped put the event into perspective for me. He said that unions have often limited their negotiations to wages, hours and benefits, and health-care unions have long argued staffing levels, but “when/if organized workers really make alliance with the community around access to jobs and improved patient care – if that happens in such a large union and a key employer in the state, then we enter new territory.”

This struggle continues on Thursday, January 29, from 2-6pm, with an Informational Picket at Rhode Island Hospital. “The picket line on Thursday is for informational purposes. It is is not a request that anyone cease working or refuse to make deliveries.”

Full video from the Speakout is below.

Paxon’s words of thanks, says Brown student and activist Stoni Tomson, “is an attempt to co-opt our movement and our struggle… this is the tactic of some of the most insidious and abusive elements on this earth.”

Tomson was speaking yesterday at a rally to demand that Brown University engage fairly in talks with the Brown Library Union.

Despite Paxon’s appearance of support, so far the University has failed to agree to a contract with library workers. It seems as though Paxon is fond of the counter-cultural reputation this kind of student/worker activism garners Brown, but actually following through on the ideals the protesters represent are another thing altogether.

As Brown graduate and library worker Mark Baumer says, “all [the university] is offering us is takeaways.” Workers are expected to accept cuts to their contracts every time they are up for discussion. “They keep chipping away a little bit with every contract, and eventually that will be a lot.”

As part of the protest demonstrators delivered a petition to President Paxon’s office, as well as several Thanksgiving themed holiday cards, with sentiments such as “Don’t Gobble Union Jobs” and “Don’t Squash Benefits.”

According to the protesters, “For workers, understaffing and lack of training/advancement opportunities remain key issues. While the University and workers remain in a deadlock, key administrators including the head of the library and members of the Organizational Planning Group are not even present at the bargaining table.”

There were many speakers at the event, but attendance was lower than normal because of the Thanksgiving break.

While the local police, fire and teachers’ unions each endorsed Cianci, most of the members don’t live in Providence, a City Hall source confirmed.

Of the 3,516 Providence Public School Department employees, 37 percent live in the city (1,310). Only 22 percent of 469 fire department employees live locally and 21 percent of the 531-member police force lives in Providence. Of the 5,432 employees total city employees (including the school district) 36 percent live in the city, or 1,937.

And when it comes to the union executive boards that decide on political endorsements, the number of locals are equally stark. Of the 13 educators on the Providence Teachers Union Executive Board, only two live in the city, or 15 percent. Of the 11 executive officers of the fire fighters bargaining unit, only two live in the city, or 18 percent. And only one of the five members of the police union lives in Providence, 20 percent.

Jeremy Sencer, an elementary school and a member of the union’s executive board who lives in Cranston, cautioned me not to discount the significance of their endorsement simply because many members don’t live locally.

“While most of us don’t live there, we do spend a significant amount of time there, and we spend a lot of our time with the kids and families there,” he said. “We’re committed to the children and families of Providence, that puts us in a position to recommend, on education, what is good for Providence.”

That this is just another outrageous privatization scam and undisguised corporate theft should be obvious.

In Providence, over 100 union members, family and supporters organized outside the Staples on North Main Street to let the public know about this shady backroom deal. Given that Staples is controlled by Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital, the entire scheme seems like a conservative consolation prize to the guy who spent too much of his own money in a hopeless campaign for the presidency.

The united States Post office is our post office. Benjamin Franklin was the first Postmaster General, and our right to a properly functioning government post office is built into the Constitution.

We are all going to miss the US Postal Service when it’s gone, so fight for it now.

The world is a complicated place. Many things, even contradictory things, can be true at the same time. Nor is it a zero-sum game. Just because something you like can be supported with evidence does not mean that the things you don’t like cannot. As a rule, everything people say and believe is true…to an extent.

Unions are people, too, my friends

Like people, like the world, unions are a complicated mass of contradictory things. As conservatives claim, it is true that unions can sometimes act to shield incompetent or unproductive workers from scrutiny and accountability. But it is also true that unions can sometimes act to shield good workers from unscrupulous bosses.

In my experience, the latter is true far more often than the former. But for conservatives and their allies in the press, one example of union shenanigans invalidates a mountain of evidence that unions do critical, sometimes life-saving work. This has to end.

(Here, I will contradict myself in that the following is a zero-sum exercise. As I will prove that the union landscape in Rhode Island is complex and varied, I will simultaneously disprove that “labor” is a single, undifferentiated bloc. Deal with it.)

I cite as evidence the union endorsements for gubernatorial candidates in the 2010 election. Also, this will support my long-running assertion that the RI Democratic Party—that is, The Machine—is dominated by highly conservative people to the point that a former Republican was the “liberal” in that race.

The Teamsters union is not a progressive organization, and its members are mostly social conservatives. In 2010, they endorsed Caprio, the Machine’s candidate. Caprio is nobody’s progressive, nobody’s liberal; he is a Democrat in name only. At the PPAC debate, the Teamsters turned out in numbers and set the ugly, partisan tone. Sitting in that highly-charged atmosphere, it was hard not to think of the phrase “union thugs.”

The SEIU is the kind of union that proves we need unions. Service workers—and I was one for about 15 years—are some of the worst abused workers in the country. As a never-was rock star, I spent many years in commercial kitchens. It is dangerous work for bad pay. And bosses and customers frequently fail to distinguish between “service” and “servant”.

In another career, I met a person in the restaurant equipment business. He told me that there is a trade term for restaurant workers: the burn-and-churn. Restaurant owners will consciously try to keep wages low by driving workers to their physical and mental limits, forcing them to quit or commit a fireable offense. Then they replace them from a large pool of unemployed workers and repeat the process.

The SEIU rightly endorsed Chafee. Even though Chafee was then an independent and recent defector from the GOP, he was by far the most liberal candidate. Virtually all progressives supported Chafee. Some, like me, did so openly. Others more integrated into the Democratic Party, could only work in the shadow or drag their feet in support of Caprio.

The AFL-CIO is a coalition of coalitions. It embodies the vast diversity in the labor movement. So it’s telling that the AFL-CIO endorsed…nobody. Because Caprio and Chafee represented such distant political positions and because the AFL-CIO members find themselves equally divided between those two positions, the Grand Coalition could not achieve unanimity of purpose and issue an endorsement. They basically abstained from the campaign.

As goes the union debate, so goes the political debate

To review, the more conservative union backs the more conservative candidate and the more liberal union backs the more liberal candidate. And the broad-based coalition union can’t decide.

This is what diversity looks like. Different people, different groups, different unions are, well, different.

It is unhelpful for people to talk about unions as if they were all the same. Conservatives do it specifically to make good unions look bad, tarring them all with the same brush, as the saying goes.

But members of the press—to whom this post is dedicated—do this because it’s easy. Explaining complex issues is hard and takes a lot of words. Reporters are under deadline, and editors can’t have long stories.

This is unacceptable because it has a real impact on the political discussion in Rhode Island. And Rhode Island desperately needs to have an honest, open discussion about our badly broke political system.

Let’s start by changing the way we talk about the organize labor movement.

Regular readers of the blog know that Treasurer Raimondo has become a lightening-rod for criticism of the state’s recent changes to the public employee pension system.

As a tactic, I’ll admit it’s a good one, simultaneously riling up the base and drawing media attention to the union and retiree’s position. It’s also the first salvo in what’s bound to be a contentious Democratic primary for the Governor’s office. But is the General Treasurer actually at fault? Consider the duties of the office.

Duties
The General Treasurer receives and disburses all state funds, issues general obligation notes and bonds, manages the investment of state funds and oversees the retirement system for state employees, teachers and some municipal employees. She is also responsible for the management of the Unclaimed Property Division, the Crime Victim Compensation Program and the state-sponsored CollegeBoundfund.

Noticeably absent is any mention of negotiating union contracts. That’s simply not her job. What critics would have you believe is that Treasurer Raimondo should have essentially “gone rogue” and usurped the Governor’s duties and possibly those of the General Assembly. L’état, c’est Gina? I’m not convinced. This blog has even gone so far as to suggest that the General Treasurer should be more concerned with “main street” than with the state’s investments and bond rating.

I’ve been a fairly consistent Raimondo supporter, but I was also present at last year’s State House protest adding my voice to the position that the plan asked too much of the neediest pension recipients. In fact I agree, as Rhode Island Federation of Teachers and Healthcare Professionals president Frank Flynn put it, that it’s “not a simple math problem as some people describe it.”  But that isn’t the job of the General Treasurer. For a treasurer, it is a math problem, and we shouldn’t expect otherwise.

And Raimondo spent an inordinate amount of time speaking with voters, union members, and retirees throughout the state before making her proposal. Oddly that’s what now seems to rile opponents. As Paul Valletta, the head of the Cranston fire fighters’ union said, “It isn’t the money, it’s the way she went about it.”

I’m not sure what else she could have done. Valletta is essentially complaining that the General Treasurer acted within the duties of the General Treasurer. That’s what we as taxpayers pay her to do! If the unions and retirees are unhappy with the absence of a formerly negotiated outcome, let’s be honest. It’s the Governor, not the General Treasurer, who’s to blame.

I’ve also been concerned that many progressives seem intent on framing the General Treasurer as some union hating, right-wing ideologue. It’s not a fair characterization given that we know little yet about what priorities Raimondo would bring to the Governor’s office, and what we do know is largely in line with progressive priorities (a social liberal who believes in marriage equality and respects the rights of immigrants). During the Carcieri years, we’d have been thrilled with a candidate with progressive credentials a fraction of hers. Yes, she has been at the forefront of a pension reform movement heralded largely by the fringe right. But to assume that makes her one of the fringe right, ignores how seriously underfunded the pensions have been here in Rhode Island. It’s quite a different thing to enact reform out of a sense of obligation than to do so because of an ideological desire to eliminate them entirely.

Ms. Raimondo also learned early on about economic forces at work in her state. When she was in sixth grade, the Bulova watch factory, where her father worked, shut its doors. He was forced to retire early, on a sharply reduced pension; he then juggled part-time jobs.

“You can’t let people think that something’s going to be there if it’s not,” Ms. Raimondo said in an interview in her office in the pillared Statehouse, atop a hill in Providence. No one should be blindsided, she said. If pensions are in trouble, it’s better to deliver the news and give people time to make other plans.

How much easier it would have been, how much less detrimental to her political future (at least with the progressives of the state) to simply enact some changes around the margins and kick the can down the road for someone else to address (historical the way most pols have handled the problem). Should we as progressives be critical of the Raimondo plan? Absolutely, but let’s not shoot down a potential rising star before she’s even had a chance to announce her platform.

First, right off the bat: anyone who uses the phrase “Democrat Party” is already showing their ignorance of the Democratic Party. You should still read their arguments, but chances are, they’re going to be off-base. And that’s what Donna Perry’s column in GoLocalProv is (the URL says Julia Steiny for some reason).

Ms. Perry tries to set up a scenario of a polarized RI Democratic Party; a “traditional apparatus” Democratic Party under the command of Chairman Ed Pacheco and another “union-social liberal” Democratic party, with NEARI’s Bob Walsh as leader (because, why not, that works). Ms. Perry’s scenario breaks down almost immediately, though she muddles through to the correct conclusion arrived at by the wrong route (that Democratic Primary results “lacking a narrative,” as WPRI’s Ted Nesi put it, are likely to continue). As Ms. Perry points out, there were a number of races where unions and marriage equality supporters worked for different candidates. If Mr. Walsh is to be the head of Ms. Perry’s fictional second Democratic Party, he seems to be doing a piss-poor job of it (no offense meant, Bob, but get your fictional party in line).

Ms. Perry points to two races for Senate; Maryellen Butke vs. Gayle Goldin and Mike McCaffrey vs. Laura Pisaturo. In the interest of space, I’ll focus solely on the former.

In Ms. Perry’s telling, Ms. Butke the marriage equality and education reform “powerhouse” is defeated by Ms. Goldin the union-chosen candidate. This faux narrative completely ignores the fact that Ms. Butke, despite gobs of cash, ran a confusing campaign that both bashed the Democratic Party and retiring Senator Rhoda Perry, and then tried proposing that Ms. Butke was the true “progressive successor” to Rhoda Perry. One mailing had Ms. Butke’s happy campaign on one side, and an attack piece on Ms. Goldin in mock Goldin colors on the other. The attack piece attempted to tie Ms. Goldin to policies she had nothing to do with, citing sources that make zero mention of Ms. Goldin; including one of Mr. Nesi’s blog posts that simply pointed out that the ultimate cost of the $75 million 38 Studios loan guarantee was closer to $112 million.

On top of this, Ms. Perry neglects to mention that Senator-elect Goldin isn’t exactly any kind of right-wing ideologue; she’s worked for an organization that wants to eliminate gender inequity and implement social justice! Oh, the horror! How could liberal Providence East Side Democratic Primary voters dare choose Ms. Goldin? In essence, there wasn’t much difference between the candidates, and Ms. Butke’s semi-negative campaigning was not effective (though she was quite energetic).

Ms. Perry has made the mistake of thinking of groups as monolithic. She’s done well in beginning to not think of the Democratic Party as monolithic. But now she’s gone and begun thinking of her fake “two Democratic Parties” as being monolithic. Or social liberal or union voters as monolithic. Just because you support marriage equality doesn’t mean you always vote for the louder marriage equality candidate. Just because you’re in a union doesn’t mean you’re going to vote the way the union tells you.

The Democratic Party in Rhode Island is not really under the control of anyone. It is a large-scale coalition of disparate groups. You can’t make blanket assumptions about any one group within that coalition. They range from various unions (unions often work against one another), environmental groups, farmers, various minority communities, LGBTQ activists, internet freedom activists, anti-poverty crusaders, pro-life activists, education reformers, corporate leaders, lawyers, neoliberals, etc., etc. Heck, even though he lost, ALEC Democrat Jon Brien is still very much part of the Democratic Party of Rhode Island.

If there is a narrative from primary night, it’s that the Democratic Party is shifting left. Unions and marriage-equality supporters didn’t really lose any ground, they only gained it, knocking off a number of their opponents. Yes, they didn’t win everything, but then, no one does. They all won under the Democratic Party banner, which should be pleasing to the Democratic Party (a displeasing result would be a large organized mass of union and/or social liberal candidate running as independents and not participating in the primary). David Cicilline absolutely crushed Anthony Gemma, which should make many Democrats smile. Going into the general election, Democrats are going to have quite an advantage, with higher turnout rates to support President Barack Obama.

So, no, Ms. Perry, as much as you, or I, might wish it, there are not three parties in Rhode Island. There’s one. It’s called the Democratic Party. It runs the state. It’s in charge. It screws up, it succeeds. How powerful is it, you might ask? Well, let’s see why I didn’t count the Republican Party as a party.

Take a look at the first television ads for Barry Hinckley and Brendan Doherty. They’re only 30 seconds each (and rather benign), so it’ll only take about a minute. Notice anything? Both candidates use the phrase “both parties” when talking about who to blame for America’s economic situation. Both fail to make use of the color red, strongly associated with Republicans, instead opting for blue (strongly associated with Democrats). And most damning of all? Neither mention their party affiliation; only Mr. Doherty shows it (barely) onscreen, I assume because of law forcing him to show that the National Republican Committee helped pay for the ad. That should tell you all you need to know about the Republican Party in Rhode Island.