This was a controversial decision with, arguably even a test of, the WFP, which was wavering between Cuomo and one of its own, law prof Zephyr Teachout.
So:
Will the WFP help Cuomo win (big)?
Will Cuomo keep his promises to it?
What does this milestone of a sort portend for the WFP’s future, in NY and elsewhere?
For a third party, getting any sort of attention at all has to be regarded as good news. That said, though, New York is one of the more liberal states in the country, so this won’t necessarily mean much elsewhere.
N.B.: They’re not doing this for the attention (they would have gotten about as much public attention if they had nominated Teachout), but for the concessions, on Cuomo’s part.
Concessions are one form of attention. What I’m saying is that, even if Cuomo breaks his promises, the fact that they got him to make them at all is a good sign.
Cuomo is going to win big. He wants to win by gigantic just in case Clinton doesn’t run in 2016.
I don’t see any specific mention of promises in those links, so here is a summary:
Will he back promises that he’s already committed to? Sure. Will he do what it takes to make sure they get enacted? Probably not, if it costs too much political capital.
Nothing. Third parties in New York are useful tools, not powers in their own right. The WFP will become relevant on the same timetable that the U.S. becomes a Christian theocracy. i.e. never.
They’re doing this because they want to keep ballot access. To stay on the ballot automatically, 50,000 people have to vote their line in the gubenatorial election. That’s what killed the Liberals in 2002…they endorsed Cuomo expecting him to get the Democratic nomination, and then he withdrew from the race and backed McCall. So, McCall got the Democratic nomination, and the Liberals were stuck with Cuomo, who wasn’t running and didn’t campaign (Cuomo got 15,000 votes on the line, not enough to keep the liberals on the ballot.)
Cuomo knows that Working Families doesn’t really have any choice but to endorse him. That’s why he agreed to take a bunch of positions he already holds. And now the Working Families Party can say “See, he’s committed to us.”
To be fair, if the WFP felt really slighted by Cuomo, they could just take their ball and go home. Mind you, their ball is a really small one, and doing so would damage them pretty badly, so that slight would have to be extreme, but it could happen.
Oh, boy, the WFP was actually able to get a politician to LIE to them! The power they must now possess! It’s just like the way progressives in general were able to get Obama to lie to them, demonstrating our power … hey, wait a minute!
The WFP remains on the ballot in New York solely because of their cross-endorsements with Democrats. It wasn’t just the Liberal party that lost their spot in 2002 (their candidate? Andrew Cuomo) but the Green party did as well. Without a cross-endorsement it would be extremely chancy for the WFP to survive.
And why should they? Probably fewer people in New York know what they stand for than actually vote for them. The Very Loony Party would do just as well. Better.
It ain’t hard to find out what they stand for, and I think a lot of Americans, perhaps even a majority or near-majority, would agree with every individual plank if asked.
At the risk of steering the thread in an odd direction, the idea of shortening work hours to provide more people work has a history further back than Schor’s book.
If I recall my History of Labor class properly the 40-hour workweek was initially proposed for much the same reason: to give more people a crack at some sort of work, even if it wasn’t ‘full time’. Over time, 40 hours has become the soi-disant norm.
I could honestly see a movement toward a 30-hour week developing over time. But in the short term it would mean economic disruption.
And what we have been going through since 2007 is what … a walk in the park? And for what … just making the super rich ultra mega wealthy? At least the game will be worth the candle, in the case of a 30-hour work week.
Absolutely. There was a movement at the start of the Depression to shorten the work week to 30 hours precisely to spread jobs around to more people. Kellogg’s actually did this.
The problem is of the chicken and egg variety. If every company did this, then nobody is at a disadvantage. If only one company does, then either it must pay workers more per hour or give them lower salaries and either is disadvantageous. Kellogg’s got away with it because of the Depression and because it was a good company to work for. Nevertheless, when work expanded to 24 hours a day with the war and there was a nationwide shortage of workers, the shorter work week no longer made sense. The shorter the work work, the costs to the company rise precipitously, with the need for more hiring and more training and more health care and more turnover. It works best in a world of lifetime employment at a company, just what we no longer have.
The number itself does not matter as much as getting the balance right between jobs and workers. That’s much harder and would vary constantly. Picking one number that’s broadly reasonable and sticking with it until it is manifestly obsolete is far less disruptive and fairer to all, even if some percentage suffers. Drawing lines is the core essence of policy-making. No line is ever perfect. You can only hope for not awful.