Volume 26, Issue 2, Spring 2017

---

Following the election of President Trump, several labor commentators urged the labor movement to take some share of the blame. By not supporting Bernie Sanders, it was argued, the majority of unions tied labor to an unpopular candidate who was out of touch with ordinary workers.

But labor’s role in electing Trump perhaps goes further than not supporting Sanders. At its 2015 legislative conference, the Building and Construction trades became the North American Building Trades Unions (NABTU).  The new name symbolized the growing distance between the Trades and the AFL-CIO and came with a clear intention to forge a closer relationship with both industry interests and the Republican Party. NABTU announced that it would endorse candidates based on how supportive they were of the kind of industries that employed their members. Given the number of members of the Trades working on coal, oil, and gas projects, this was in effect a public endorsement of the fossil fuel industry’s agenda.

In an interview, NABTU leader Sean McGarvey stated, “We’re not about political parties. We’re about construction workers…Both parties have changed, and we have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies.” When asked about the role in the Republican Party of big Tea Party backers Koch Industries, McGarvey responded, “They’re one of our biggest clients. You’ll never see us making public statements saying negative things about Koch Industries.”[1]

NABTU also made a significant contribution to the anti-Obama rhetoric of Trump and his base. When Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline in late 2015, the reaction, for example, from Laborers’ International Union of North America (LiUNA) could have provided content for one of Trump’s campaign speeches. “President Obama today demonstrated that he cares more about kowtowing to green-collar elitists than he does about creating desperately needed, family-supporting, blue-collar jobs,” said LiUNA. “After a seven-year circus of cowardly delay, the President’s decision to kill the Keystone XL pipeline is just one more indication of an utter disdain and disregard for salt-of-the-earth, middle-class working Americans.”

In the height of the primaries and with Trump closing in on the Republican nomination, the AFL-CIO, American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees formed a “Stop Trump” super PAC with billionaire and hedge fund manager Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate operation.[2] By launching the PAC, Steyer’s concern about Trump’s open support of climate change denial and his commitment to eradicate climate protection measures appeared to come into political alignment with union concerns about how a Trump presidency and the mortal threat it posed to worker rights and protections.  The threat is, of course, now both real and present.

NABTU publicly railed against the AFL-CIO teaming up with Steyer to defeat Trump, and urged the AFL-CIO to pull out. NABTU’s letter to Federation president Richard Trumka made front-page news among sections of the press, some of which routinely ignore covering labor issues. The letter stated, “We do not want any of our members’ financial support for the Federation to be used against them and their economic well-being in pursuit of this endeavor.” It also charged, “The AFL-CIO has now officially become infiltrated by financial and political interests that work in direct conflict to many of our members’—and yes, AFL-CIO dues paying members’—lives.”

One could argue that NABTU, shooting from the hip, was impervious to the possible impact of a Trump presidency on workers and the environment. But based on the recent past, one could also make a persuasive argument that NABTU’s intentions were based on a clear-eyed assessment of political realities and energy economics. It was simply doing the job it said it would do back in 2009 when it partnered with fossil fuel interests to drive the “energy superpower” agenda. Either way, it is hard to see how such a public exchange—one punctuated by Trump-like accusations—did not contribute in some way to the outcome on November 8.

No Contest: Clinton’s Energy vs. Trump’s Energy
The idea that Secretary Clinton’s approach to U.S. energy would have differed radically from the one being pursued now by Trump is false. The difference between the two is often more about style than it is about substance.

For example, Trump has created the impression that he is far more supportive of coal than Clinton would have been. Most U.S. coal is used to generate electricity. However, more than 75 percent of U.S. coal-fired power stations are more than 35 years old, and 17 percent are over 50 years old-or as many 353 plants. Back in 2012, fully one third of all coal-fired plants operating in the U.S., were considered ripe for retirement. During the past decade, coal-fired power stations have either switched to cheaper gas or closed up shop. In 2006 coal generated more than half of U.S. electrical power, and by 2016 it hovered at around 30 percent. Wind and solar have both grown from almost nothing to about 5 percent, but the big winner is gas, which grew from 16 percent to 33 percent, overtaking coal.[3]

The idea that Secretary Clinton’s approach to U.S. energy would have differed radically from the one being pursued now by Trump is false.

Removing EPA regulations on coal is therefore not going to reverse the move to cheap gas. Clinton took the view that today’s energy economics means that coal jobs are not coming back, whereas Trump said he would “bring back coal.” Trump has yet to say how the coal industry might be revived or how, by supporting both coal and gas, the use of both could actually grow in tandem.

What about the differences between Clinton and Trump on climate change? On Day 1 of his presidency, Trump removed any references to climate change from the White House’s website, which issued a statement, “For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry…The Trump administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans.” Trump has vowed to both pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord and to scrap the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP). Had Clinton been elected president, she would have honored the U.S.’ “nationally determined contribution” to the Paris Climate Accord that was negotiated in late 2015 and ratified in November 2016. The CPP was expected to deliver most of the emissions reductions proposed by the Obama administration under the Accord.

But, again, on closer inspection the gap between Trump and Clinton on climate change is not as vast as it might seem. Understandably, the mainstream environment groups have actively supported the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s CPP as a “better than nothing” option given the GOP’s control over Congress during Obama’s second term. But in reality much of the plan was built around reinforcing existing trends, such as the replacement of dilapidated coal-fired power stations with those powered by gas. And with more U.S. gas coming from fracking every year, this was, and remains, music to the ears of the industry. Obama’s Paris commitment, and thus the EPA’s CPP, would have in many respects accelerated both the U.S.’ and the global “dash for gas” and did not depart much from “business as usual” projections.

Clinton’s support for fracking was made clear in documents released by Wikileaks. In one of her paid Wall Street speeches, Clinton in 2013 praised her own contribution to the industry’s growth,

Fracking (for oil and gas) was developed at the Department of Energy…I mean, the whole idea of how fracking came to be available in the marketplace is because of research done by our government. And I’ve promoted fracking in other places around the world.”[4]

With fracking, said Clinton, “We are truly on a path. [We] will be net energy exporters assuming we do it right.

During the primaries, as with Sanders’ “ban fracking” message resonating as his campaign was gaining momentum, Clinton said she would introduce regulations on shale drilling. In a remarkably disingenuous remark during one the debates with Sanders, Clinton said her regulations would be so stringent as to make it almost impossible for fracking to continue anywhere in the U.S.  But Clinton’s proposals would not, indeed could not, be effective given the Federal government’s limited regulatory reach. And even the most stringent of regulations would have been impossible to implement given the sheer number of wells associated with fracking. According to EPA estimates, between 75,000 and 90,000 new gas wells were drilled between 2011 and 2014 and the number of inspectors in any given state is often in single digits.[5]

Many will continue to see “night and day” differences between the policies pursued by a Clinton presidency and what we are likely to see from Trump. The policy differences are indeed significant, but with regard to climate change, they are not fundamental. When Sanders said, as president, he would both ban fracking for shale oil and gas and make renewable energy and climate protection a top priority, he was proposing something that amounted to an all-out confrontation with oil and gas industry’s agenda. Clinton’s campaign took into account the need to win the votes of growing numbers of (especially young) environmentally aware people, but there is little to suggest that her presidency would have charted a radically different course.

Stopping the Sanders’ Energy and Climate Agenda at the DNC
Meanwhile, the Secretary Clinton’s platform also reflected NABTU’s influence. NABTU had closed ranks with the rest of labor and endorsed Clinton in the 2016 presidential race. Expecting her to be elected, NABTU praised her “reasoned, thought-out (energy) strategy, on particularly natural gas as a bridge fuel to the clean energy future…She supports nuclear, which is the only carbon-free generation right now.” In a private meeting with the Trades, Clinton had assured them she would continue to support a largely fossil-based agenda with an eye on promoting US exports. [6]

Convened by the Democratic National Committee, Sanders’ supporters on the Democratic Party’s platform committee wanted to include a ban on fracking, a halt to any new mining and drilling permits on public lands, and a carbon tax. The principal opponent of the Sanders proposals was Carol Browner, former President Bill Clinton’s EPA administrator in the 1990s. All three proposals were rejected by a single vote. Interestingly, labor’s representative on the committee, was not from NABTU, but a leading American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) official. Speaking on behalf of the AFL-CIO, he supported Browner, noting noted that “many unions” (read: NABTU) were opposed to a ban on fracking. Fracking had created jobs, and if the Democratic Party came out in favor of a ban, it could lose to Trump in several battleground states.

The influence of NABTU’s political line continues to have a long reach. It reflects a two-pronged approach. One prong is to promote the interests of coal, oil, and gas interests and to do so as an independent voice, released of commitments to the Democratic Party or, for that matter, the rest of the labor movement. The other prong is to continue to influence the AFL-CIO (as paid-up affiliated unions with representatives on the Executive Council) in a manner that serves the “energy superpower” agenda and counters the influence of unions who seek a more progressive and movement-building approach to energy and climate policy.

. . . NABTU[’s] . . . leaders risk turning themselves into attack dogs for a predatory president, who plans to eviscerate collective bargaining . . .

For NABTU, the mid-January meeting with Trump in the White House probably felt like “mission accomplished.” The problem for NABTU is that its energy policy is now devoid of anything that may be described as progressive. Its leaders risk turning themselves into attack dogs for a predatory president, who plans to eviscerate collective bargaining and, if successful, project labor agreements may well be the next target.

Had Hillary Clinton been elected, NABTU could have probably gotten many of the same policies enacted, including a climate agenda that opened up more space for gas. Rising global demand for oil means that the export of shale oil will continue and, like the export of gas, this would have no bearing on the U.S’ climate goals because every country is responsible for the emissions generated from burning (not exporting) fossil fuels. Clinton’s commitment to making the U.S. an energy superpower would, following Obama, have been packaged in a way that looked progressive but was, in fact, quite the opposite.

For progressive labor, energy is now a core issue, and opportunities exist in the Democratic Party and other spaces to strengthen the Sanders approach and to reposition labor as a strong advocate for a break with the “energy superpower” agenda.

For progressive labor, . . . opportunities exist in the Democratic Party . . . to strengthen the Sanders approach . . .

Meanwhile, for NABTU, there is nowhere left to hide. As of this writing, Trump is ready to push for approval of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines. This is just the beginning. Unions who side with Trump in these and similar battles will pay a heavy political price. The rank and file and many principled and progressive leaders in the Building Trades and other unions will sooner or later have their say, and the Trump-Trades Confederacy will likely be short lived. Attack dogs normally sleep at the feet of their owners in relative comfort, but they seldom outlive them.

---

Notes

[1] http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/2015/04/union-builds-bridges-with-business-and-even-some.html.  The full quote:  “Even if you look at Koch Industries — they’re one of our biggest clients. You’ll never see us making public statements saying negative things about Koch Industries, They’re a huge client of ours. Do we agree with some of the things that they supposedly support? No. Do we understand why they do it? Yeah, OK, because they’re looking for political advantage for a political point of view, and the Democrats don’t see it the way they see it. And other unions in the labor movement tend to be much more Democratic unions. And if you can hurt the labor movement, i.e. you hurt the Democratic Party. It’s just a system that we really don’t want to be engaged or involved in.

[2] AFL-CIO’s anti-Trump effort runs into climate split, http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-shift/2016/05/unions-teaming-up-with-tom-steyer-nike-expands-paid-leave-arbitration-and-the-supremes-214261

[3] http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25392. “Natural gas expected to surpass coal in mix of fuel used for U.S. power generation in 2016,” US Energy Information Administration, March 16, 2016

[4] http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/10/13/secret-clinton-speeches-show-that-hillary-supports-fracking-n2229896

[5] New York State’s decision to ban fracking was based in part by the fact that, “The dispersed nature of the activity magnifies the possibility of process and equipment failures, leading to the potential for cumulative risks for exposures and associated adverse health outcomes.”

[6] http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/10/17/get-life-clinton-bashed-anti-fracking-activists-during-private-labor-meeting

---

Author Biography

Sean Sweeney is director of the International Program on Labor, Climate and Environment at the Murphy Institute, and coordinator of Trade Unions for Energy Democracy.