The foundation for this position would have to be religious, and could be challenged legally I would think. Just a guess.

of it's members?

Once upon a time, unions were about safety and equality, in addition to pay. Sadly, too many are just interested in money now.

many unions are pro gay.

However there are hundreds of Unions, each with it's own ideas. Some are better then others.

So like anything else, your milage will vary.

I hear "nigger" almost exclusively from union people. What a bunch fo shitheads.

Cause when Im sitting at break with my union coworkers, "nigger" comes up all too often. The problem with that is that they are talking about the black soldiers who very literally saved my life in Iraq dozens of times. I owe them my life, and I owe them the discomfort and loss of social hierarchy benefits by calling these people out.

The downfall of the modern union is that shitheads like those in dayton do get the same benefits as real democrats and real union members. Way back in the day, Unions became such a strong workplace compared to everyone else, that everybody in this country knows it is a better deal to work union, whether they like it or not. A lot of people come into the union to reap the benfits, and do not a goddamn thing to further our cause or maintain our legacy of superior work, training and competence.

Everything Ive ever had growing up, literally, came from a union dollar. Everything I have now, is from the union dollar. My dad was president of his large city local. I grew up hearing the politics, the workings and seeing what happens when unions diminish. Those guys in dayton should be ashamed. I know gay/lesbian officers in my city. They are excellent officers, and deserve equal rights and benefits. Actually putting a second thought into this, they should have their charters suspended for not supporting fellow officers because of "morals". truth is, they dont want to be called fag lovers or whatever.

Ironworkers Local #24

The grotesque prejudices of even a majority should not be allowed to trample on the rights of a minority.

Sounds like these guys favor right wing republican politics. I hope they realize that this
same doctrine favors the politics of destroying unions and contracting their jobs out
to private corporations which would destroy their pensions and benefits and eventually replace
all of them with $10 an hr. wages.
They are ignorant selfish idiots and I blame the Union Leaders!

and they will need allies, Goodluck, go ask the teabaggers.

Union busting would be a lot harder of many unions didn't work so hard at alienating potential allies. I say that as a lifelong union supporter.

board in my local wont even ENDORSE president obama. Cause a lot of them are conservatives. They reap the benefits, but do nothing to ensure our future. Ive been working a guy at work for a month now. He is completely on board with Obama now. All we have to do is be educated on the issues, and educate our membership. At average 15% of the labor force, nationally, across all trades, we're hardly a huge voting block but there are enough to make a difference.

Will some one please tell the unions that they are supposed to be wild eyed commies leading the way to destroy traditional values. That is at least what Republicans expect from you.

"... their moral ethics..."

Oh, I think they've shown just how "moral" they are with this rejection.

I will support unions. But not shit like this.

they most certainly have many faults and they are not always progressive by any stretch of the imagination.

On that issue, the union position was the only progressive one, and Rahm's position was totally Republican. What happened here justifies a speak-out campaign against this position by this union...it doesn't justify opposition to the labor movement's continued existence.

What you may not understand, my friend, is that the people who are usually the most critical of union leaderships are union people themselves.

My dispute during that thread was about unions ALWAYS being supported no matter what. I disagreed with that just as I disagree with this union's position.

unions are always needed. Nobody's saying unions are infallible.

This is an old time George Meany moment(like Meany all-but-endorsing Nixon in '72 just because McGovern's platform was humane to gay people) in the worst sense.

And that opposition had to do with McGovern's vote to NOT repeal Taft-Hartley. Meany told McGovern that repealing Taft-Hartley was the #1 concern of Labor, and when it came up for a vote McGovern voted to keep Taft-Hartley. Meany was NEVER going to support anyone who had voted for keeping Taft-Hartley, thus Labor's opposition to McGovern during the 1972 primary election.

When McGovern

Thus in 1972, Labor's first choice was Humphrey not McGovern and Labor's support was more pro- Humphrey then pro-Nixon.

Second, Labor's leadership (which included Meany) had had to endure the anti-labor parts of the Anti-Communist hysteria of the late 1940s into the 1950s. Many parts of that Hysteria had NOT died completely by the early 1970s (And would come back to life under Reagan). Thus the Anti-war movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s was seen by many in Labor as a plot to get them to embrace concepts supported by Communists and thus be caught in a new Anti-Red Scare. For this reason Labor's leadership was NOT going to do anything that even looked like support of Communists and the Anti-War movement was being painted Red by the Right. Thus Labor was NOT about to oppose the War in Vietnam and would oppose anyone who opposes that war, more in fear that Labor be painted as being Communist then anything else.

One aspect of this dilemma for Labor:
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=12739
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/chapter6.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/17/opinion/zelizer-labor-democrats/index.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/policamp/dilemma.htm
http://presidentelect.org/art_cooper_e1972an.html

Basically, Meany support for McGovern was never more then lukewarm but he did support McGovern. The problem was every time McGovern spoke to his base, the "New Left" he turned out alienating some part of Labor. Meany, being an ELECTED official (Through elected by Labor's leaders, who themselves were elected by their union members) had to respond to the people who voted for him, and would vote for him in the future. The problem was most Labor Members disliked what McGovern came to stand for, and McGovern's vote to keep Taft-Hartley was more the enough reason for union members NOT support him. Basically, when it come down to votes that Labor wanted, McGovern had failed to deliver. McGovern had support some Labor supported bills, but those were bills where his vote was not critical, for repealing Taft-Hartley Labor needed every vote they could get and McGovern decided that to re-elected as a Senator from South Dakota was more important then getting Labor Support in a Presidential election.

Compare that to Lincoln, during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, Lincoln opposed sovereignty as to the Slave issue, a position that cost him the Senate election of 1858, but won him the Presidential election in 1860. McGovern acted like Douglas, preferring the win the next Senate election and deal with the Presidential election later. That policy cost both Douglas and McGovern the Presidency, Douglas over Slavery, McGovern over Taft-Hartley.

Many people to this day, disliked the fact that McGovern lost in 1972, but McGovern never had the support of Labor and without that support it is almost impossible for a Democrat to win the Presidency. Labor is not as strong as it was in 1972, but it is still a factor (and one of the reasons for the present tight race is Obama's failure to get the Check-off for Union membership even up for a vote in Congress, that failure has hurt him among Labor).

Labor has priority, and in the late 1960s and early 1970s it was the repeal of Taft-Hartley, today it is the check-off union movement. Gay rights is a minor concern for Labor, Labor will oppose Gay Marriage for Labor sees no advantage for them to support it. When it is to they advantage Labor will support Gay Marriage, but do NOT expect Labor to lead on the issue when supporters of Gay Marriage are neutral on Card Check and even on Taft-Hartley. People join coalitions to get something they want and so far no one is offering labor anything of real value. The same happened in 1972, McGovern's track record showed labor he would NOT give Labor the supported labor needed (and Nixon had actually become more pro-Labor after the Postal Strike of 1972, when Nixon gave in to the Letter Carriers and gave them a contract they could live with AND the right to strike. The 1970 Postal Strike had been technically illegal, but Nixon seeing keeping it illegal meant nothing, made it legal for Postal Employees to strike). In short, Nixon was giving more to Labor then McGovern was offering, and all Nixon wanted was Labor Neutrality. Labor was more then willing to give Nixon what he wanted, for they were getting more from Nixon then McGovern had given them, given his previous vote NOT to repeal Taft-Hartley.

McGovern lost Labor in 1972 for he appeared to be more pro-Labor then McGovern had been. Most of this was forced on Nixon (i.e. the Postal Strike) but Nixon had become more and more pro-labor, while McGovern had not been forgiven for his vote on the repeal of Taft-Hartley (a vote that Labor would have lost even with McGovern's vote, but McGovern by Voting against it, showed that he valued getting re-elected higher then doing good for Labor).

I FEEL like you're wrong about some "thing".

I FEEL that what I think, is best for you.

I FEEL like taking away your civil rights because you don't FEEL the way I do.

So, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are dependant on what a person FEELS.

Well, I FEEL like those people should be fined or jailed because I FEEL like they are illegally holding their own constituents hostage to FEELINGS and not the law.

IMO this union has now failed because they have no sense of community or common struggle. No point in anyone belonging to this one. It should disband.

And that the local Ratzstapo had a lot of influence in the decision.

as I have always carried water for unions and their right to organize and prosper.
Fucked over once again.

First of all, consider the source.
The Toledo Blade with its corporate owner Block Communications have a history of anti-union practices including multiple long term worker lock outs as a negotiating tactic to force pay cuts and benefit reductions. These guys are not likely to print any union related article without their anti-union slant.

Second, read the whole article!
The Toledo Policemen's union is quoted: "TPPA asked that benefits be extended to domestic partners during the union’s last round of contract talks but the city refused to write that into the contract that was eventually written, he said.
“We were denied in the last two rounds of negotiations,” Mr. Wagner said.
“He is throwing this at us after we are asking for it through negotiations.”

Third, look a little deeper.
Something doesn't smell right here, eh? Thats why you're all wrinkling up your noses. The contract negotiations a year ago were tough as the Mayor's agenda included: "The city has been seeking to rein in labor costs to help balance its ailing budget and stretch revenues. The report recommends employee wage freezes for 2012 and 2013, and an increase in health-care contributions over the same period from the current 5 percent to as much as 15 percent, depending on worker income. Mr. Zeizer also advised that the city reduce its contributions to the employees’ pensions from 10 percent to 3 percent over the next two years."

So, you take the lowest paid city workers and freeze their wages and triple their health care contributions, and then between contracts you volunteer that they increase their insurance costs by including non-married partners. Why not save that for the scheduled contract re-negotiations next year? It's a time honored union busting tactic to pitch the union workers against the non-union workers by finding a way to get a benefit to the non union workers and a burden to the union workers.
It is Paternalism. And if you have a friendly News organization to smear the union it can go a long ways to help decertify the union, bust it, in the future and get everything nicely privatized.

It's exactly like what the Republican House is doing to Obama. Obstruct progress, and then blame Obama for not making progress.

Seems someone has a deep-seated hatred of teachers' unions. Check out another thread started by this poster:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014226261

Just because somebody's in a union does not mean that they can do no wrong.

In June the city council amended legislation allowing the mayor to re-negotiate what the city pays per person to the fire fighters union health care fund in order to add domestic partners to the plan. The mayor vetoed that legislation because he wanted to get political credit for adding domestic partners but did not want to help pay for it. Instead, he tried to dump all the expense on the fire fighters. They in effect told the Mayor to go fuck himself. This has more to do with union busting than who wants to cover domestic partner in their health plan.


http://www.toledoblade.com/local/2012/06/06/Mayor-vetoes-amended-domestic-partners-health-care-measure.html

Mayor vetoes amended domestic-partners health-care measure

Is the quote at the end of the OP a correct quote from Don Czerniak? Maybe misquoted or out of context? As it is written it sounds like he didn't really have too much faith in his union constituents vote or argument.

quote from OP:
“We had to bring back to the members and they felt — some of them felt — it wasn’t right,” Mr. Czerniak said. “Even though the mayor and city council have their own personal feelings, each one of the members just didn’t think it was right under their moral ethics or whatever you want to call it.”

I will only say that there is much more going on behind the scenes than a bunch of Union members from this local voting to deny benefits to domestic partners. During Czerniak's negotiations with the city( in which they gave many concessions and were not very happy about it) adding domestic partners to the plan was not even discussed.