Back to the topic,

A labor-tolerant President is a pre-requisite for any job action undertaken to protect the profession. While Geo. W. clearly is not on our side, Republicrat or Demipublican labels don't make much difference.

Hillary was on the BOD of Wal-Mart. I'm not sure if that makes her a Liberative or a Conservable, but I would say it makes her not the most Labor friendly candidate on the trail. Of course, any candidate banking the kind of cash the front runners are is probably going to favor business intrests over labor - Labor Unions can't compete with that kind of Jack, because 1) There are a lot fewer Union members than there used to be. and 2) The ones that are left are making (relatively) less than thier predecessors, and thus have less money to bribe, er, contribute to Pols.

But an active Union membership can still make a difference. 2000 was decided by hundreds of votes in FLA. If all the hotel maids in MIA were unionized, and block voted for the popular vote winner... well, we'd be writing a very different history book.

An active Union membership can make as big a difference in your congressional districts too, which is perhaps more important long term. A pro labor Congress can stymie an executive trying to roll back our rights. Rights gained 100 years ago. Rights literally paid for with men's lives. If you will support your Union's political activity with your time, talent and treasure, you Union will become more important to the Pols, thus more powerful, and thus more able to deliver the results we are looking for.

To mix metaphors, we may have lost our home run threat (the strike), but we can still play small ball and win the game. Its harder, will take longer, and clearly isn't as sexy, but it is an achievable outcome.