Union Yes

Airport baggage screeners will get collective bargaining rights under legislation now passed by the House and Senate. I'm glad to see labor reasserting itself around MEMBERSHIP issues, both in this action and the Employee Free Choice Act. The White House can veto either or both, but they'll essentially have to show contempt for working people and, in the case of the 9-11 legislation, value corporate profits over homeland security.

Matthew Yglesias wonders why Democrats are so responsive to union issues and not issues of Iraq, national security, foreign policy, stopping torture and domestic spying, etc. And he gives the answer:

Not that I begrudge the unions their influence, either. They won it fair and square -- with organizing, with money, with volunteers, with discipline, with clear requests, etc. As you see with any influential group, securing influence takes work. Sadly, there are virtually no institutions of any consequence organized around providing a progressive take on the substance -- as opposed to labor procedures -- of national security issues. And until that changes, you'll keep having what we have today; a Democratic Party with very clear ideas about whether or not airport screeners should be represented by unions, but very hazy ideas about how to deal with Iran.

That's absolutely true, but starting to change. I think what VoteVets.org is doing with StopIranWar.com is very important and key. They've already spurred Jim Webb to action, as he introduced a bill restricting all funding for any strike on Iran without Congressional authorization. That's a good start, but as Yglesias says, it'll take years and a lot of money. Unions have manpower and moneypower, and they can provide infrastructure in practically all 50 states. There isn't going to really be anything like that in the foreign policy sphere, unless possibly you mobilize veteran's groups and provide them with all the support they need to be a political factor.