Content area
Abstract
[James J. Lawlor], a conservative probate judge from Waterbury, narrowly defeated Lynn H. Taborsak, a state lawmaker and union plumber from Danbury. The AFL-CIO had endorsed Taborsak in the primary.
Taborsak supporters -- including leaders of the International Association of Machinists, District 1199 of the New England Health Care Employees Union and the United Auto Workers -- thought the labor federation shouldn't endorse Lawlor before Taborsak decides whether to mount a third-party challenge. She is supposed to announce a decision today. So they challenged the push to endorse Lawlor, causing a raucous debate on the convention floor at the Sheraton-Hartford Hotel. The effort to endorse Lawlor fell short of the two-thirds vote needed -- though it still scored a solid majority of almost 59 percent.
[Dominic J. Badolato] said he believes much of the opposition stems from personality differences between the leadership of certain unions and the top leaders of the labor federation, including Badolato and John W. Olsen, the AFL-CIO president.
Full text
Each year at the state AFL-CIO convention, opponents to the incumbent leadership seem to find at least one opportunity to make some noise and roil up the assembled delegates.
This year, it proved to be the fight over whether the labor federation should endorse James J. Lawlor, the victor in Tuesday's Democratic primary in the 5th Congressional District.
Lawlor, a conservative probate judge from Waterbury, narrowly defeated Lynn H. Taborsak, a state lawmaker and union plumber from Danbury. The AFL-CIO had endorsed Taborsak in the primary.
But leaders of the AFL-CIO -- backed by many delegates -- thought the federation should now throw its support to Lawlor to help oust U.S. Rep. Gary Franks, a first-term, conservative Republican from Waterbury.
Taborsak supporters -- including leaders of the International Association of Machinists, District 1199 of the New England Health Care Employees Union and the United Auto Workers -- thought the labor federation shouldn't endorse Lawlor before Taborsak decides whether to mount a third-party challenge. She is supposed to announce a decision today. So they challenged the push to endorse Lawlor, causing a raucous debate on the convention floor at the Sheraton-Hartford Hotel. The effort to endorse Lawlor fell short of the two-thirds vote needed -- though it still scored a solid majority of almost 59 percent.
That meant the AFL-CIO would make no endorsement in the 5th district, leaving individual unions free to decide whom to support. It also left some leaders fuming that the labor federation would be forced to sit on the sidelines in the important race.
The fight brought momentary chaos to the otherwise orderly convention that until that point had often sounded like a rally for the Clinton-Gore ticket.
Delegates seemed to divide roughly along the same lines as the fight last year over the AFL-CIO presidency. And the debate showed once again that the forces that make the most noise don't necessarily have the most votes. In this case, though, they had enough.
Thursday night, while delegates were voting on whether to endorse Lawlor, Dominic J. Badolato, executive vice president of the state AFL-CIO, said sitting out the race would only help Franks.
Badolato said the opponents had mounted a deliberate effort to create disruption.
"They are not happy unless they are creating dissension," said Badolato, leader of the largest single delegation to the convention as executive director of Council 4 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Kevin Doyle, a vice president of District 1199 and an outspoken opponent of endorsing Lawlor, said that's not the case. He said many delegates could not support a candidate who had used Taborsak's union ties against her in the primary.
But Badolato said he believes much of the opposition stems from personality differences between the leadership of certain unions and the top leaders of the labor federation, including Badolato and John W. Olsen, the AFL-CIO president.
Doyle disagreed, saying the differences are more about how to approach the issues faced by organized labor. He said last year's presidential election -- in which Olsen turned back a challenge by Hank Murray, a longtime UAW organizer -- was waged because Murray's supporters wanted a more pro-active labor movement.
"This is not about personalities," Doyle said Friday.
Just after the convention ended, Olsen characterized the debate as just another example of democracy in action in the AFL-CIO. The delegates might have voted down the endorsement, but they did so using an established set of rules and then got on to the other business before the convention, he said.
Olsen said the convention accomplished what he wanted to accomplish. Delegates left excited about the fall campaign and ready to work to elect Democrats to Congress and labor supporters to the General Assembly, he said.
But the fight over the Lawlor endorsement could foreshadow the fight next year for the AFL-CIO's top jobs -- including Olsen's.
Badolato said the opposition groups are working to build support for a bid to oust the president next September.
During the just-ended convention, delegates approved a constitutional amendment that will lengthen the terms of top officers elected next year from two to four years.
Though leaders of the opposition coalition expressed misgivings about the change before the convention, they did not raise objections on the floor. Privately, one leader said they knew they did not have the votes to kill it and didn't believe it warranted a fight.
But now that the term of office has been doubled, both sides know there is more at stake when the elections come in 1993.
Michael Remez is a Courant business writer
(Copyright @ The Hartford Courant 1992)