# Andrew Cuomo and the Working Families Party **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 3, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921 "2014-06-03T13:48:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/1 "2014-06-03T13:48:58Z")
The [Working Families Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Families_Party), a left-progressive political party founded in 1998 from the remnants of the [New Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Party_(USA)), is only known in a few states, but apparently, in New York, [it is a big enough deal to demand concessions from Gov. Cuomo, and get them, in exchange for its re-election nomination](http://www.thenation.com/article/180084/working-families-party-plays-it-safe-endorsing-andrew-cuomo-governor#). (That nomination is a big deal because NY is one of the few states that allow [electoral fusion](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion), therefore Cuomo will appear on the ballot twice, as Dem nominee and as WFP nominee; which matters to him because, while he’s sure to win the election, he wants to win **big.)** 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](http://law.fordham.edu/faculty/zephyrteachout.htm). > [@](#): > > Teachout’s supporters argued that the WFP’s progressive principles could not coexist with support for Cuomo, even if it was smart politics. “Are we going to remain true to our basic purposes?” asked David Schwartz, a WFP leader from Westchester County. “Are we going to protect the essence of the Working Families Party?” > > On the other side were labor unions—long the backbone of the party’s financing—and grassroots organizing groups who wanted to take the deal Cuomo was offering, which represented major concessions by the governor. > > While Cuomo has hewed to progressive principles on social policy by backing gay marriage and gun control, he hasn’t on some other issues. In this year’s budget he pushed for estate tax cuts and tax breaks for banks. He used de Blasio as a foil during a dust-up over charter schools earlier this year that resulted in extraordinary giveaways to charters in the state budget. He also resisted de Blasio on full funding to universal pre-K and on a push for local control of the minimum wage. Cuomo has failed to deliver on women’s equality and campaign-finance reform, often blaming the inaction on a state Senate controlled by breakaway Democrats and Republicans—an arrangement Cuomo has until now done nothing to challenge. > > In his message to the WFP convention—delivered via pre-taped video and a brief phone call—Cuomo embraced the cause of a Democratic senate, signed on to increasing the minimum wage and giving cities a say in setting it and vowed to pursue campaign-finance reform, the DREAM Act, marijuana decriminalization and other goals. > > This was, Cuomo’s backers told the WFP state committee, everything the party had fought for since 1998: a commitment by a governor almost certain to win re-election to deliver dozens of policies with real impact. “We’re not talking the old same-old, same-old—incrementally raising the minimum wage,” said New York Communities for Change’s Jonathan Westin. > > Teachout’s supporters didn’t dispute that Cuomo had shifted considerably. Their argument was that he couldn’t be trusted to deliver. After all, Cuomo won the WFP’s support in 2010 and then turned his back on many progressive goals. What would be different this time? Hadn’t the party grown big enough to stop having to hold its nose in the voting booth? So: 1. Will the WFP help Cuomo win (big)? 2. Will Cuomo keep his promises to it? 3. What does this milestone of a sort portend for the WFP’s future, in NY and elsewhere? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/2 "2014-06-03T14:23:14Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/3 "2014-06-03T14:28:52Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > For a third party, getting any sort of attention . . . 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. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/4 "2014-06-03T15:31:01Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/5 "2014-06-03T17:55:47Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > So: > > 1. Will the WFP help Cuomo win (big)? > 2. Will Cuomo keep his promises to it? > 3. What does this milestone of a sort portend for the WFP’s future, in NY and elsewhere? 1. Cuomo is going to win big. He wants to win by gigantic just in case Clinton doesn’t run in 2016. 2. I don’t see any specific mention of promises in those links, so here is a [summary](http://gothamist.com/2014/06/01/cuomo_promises_progressive_agenda_t.php): > [@](#): > > Cuomo, the sources say, will also publicly commit to a progressive agenda that includes creation of a state DREAM Act, passage of a women’s equality agenda that includes strengthening of the state’s abortion law, back an increase in the state minimum wage higher than the $9 an hour set to go into effect that will also be indexed going forward to inflation and publicly support providing localities the right to set their own minimum wage. He’ll also support enactment of a campaign public financing system. A number of the items Cuomo has already been pushing for, but failed to pass the Senate. 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. 1. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2014, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/6 "2014-06-04T00:03:08Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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. 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2014, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/7 "2014-06-04T21:33:49Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2014, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/8 "2014-06-04T23:21:59Z")
Sure, they could, but it would be suicidal. It wouldn’t hurt Cuomo much and kill the WFP. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/9 "2014-06-05T14:55:08Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > 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. 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! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/10 "2014-06-05T15:50:32Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Sure, they could, but it would be suicidal. It wouldn’t hurt Cuomo much and kill the WFP. I don’t see how running Teachout as their candidate for governor would kill them. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/11 "2014-06-05T17:00:51Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I don’t see how running Teachout as their candidate for governor would kill them. 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/12 "2014-06-05T17:14:20Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > And why should they? Probably fewer people in New York know what they stand for than actually vote for them. It ain’t hard to find out [what they stand for](http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/our-issues/), and I think a lot of Americans, perhaps even a majority or near-majority, would agree with every individual plank if asked. ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/13 "2014-06-05T17:49:26Z")
Why isn’t there a party for workshy singletons? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/14 "2014-06-05T18:15:51Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > Why isn’t there a party for workshy singletons? Every day is a party for workshy singletons. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2014, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/15 "2014-06-08T12:11:51Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > Why isn’t there a party for workshy singletons? There may not be a party, [but there’s a movement.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_of_work) Some people even think it may be part of[the solution to our current economic woes](http://inthesetimes.com/article/16550/more_jobs_less_work). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/16 "2014-06-09T01:18:02Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > There may not be a party, [but there’s a movement.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_of_work) > > Some people even think it may be part of[the solution to our current economic woes](http://inthesetimes.com/article/16550/more_jobs_less_work). Not a new idea. See [_The Overworked American_](http://www.amazon.com/The-Overworked-American-Unexpected-Decline/dp/046505434X) (1993), by Juliet Schor. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/17 "2014-06-09T14:13:46Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/18 "2014-06-09T14:50:12Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/19 "2014-06-09T15:22:46Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > In 1930, the Kellogg Company announced that most of its factories would shift towards 30 hour work weeks, from the usual 40. W.K. Kellogg stated that he did this so that an additional shift of workers would be employed in an effort to support people through the depression era. This practice remained until World War II, and continued briefly after the war, although some departments and factories remained locked into 30 hour work weeks until 1980. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921/20 "2014-06-09T16:34:33Z")
Not disagreeing with you, Xap. I do seem to recall the movement I was mentioning started during the labor unrest of the 1880s and 1890s. Still, it is a matter of priorities. Free time vs size of paycheck. And that’s going to be a different place for every person who works. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/andrew-cuomo-and-the-working-families-party/689921.md?page=2)