The Field: An Anti-Endorsement in Nevada

The Ultra Rich will pay their share, will have to pay a living wage, economic slavery is OVER! No abuse, no hard labor for a bauble -Economic justice, Social justice, Environmental justice! ONLY BERNIE SANDERS make American children secured, healthy and hopeful! #bernie2020.

I think that, if you wanna beat President Trump, Bernie is the person for the job today. But not quite sure that he can actually do it. Well see.

I’ve been a listener since the beginning of The Daily. This is the first time I’ve felt compelled to write a comment. This podcast took a turn right in the middle, and I did not understand exactly what you were trying to report. However, I have several questions. Why did the reporter refuse to disclose the union member’s name to the union spokesperson, yet she disclosed it in the podcast? Also, why was there not a similar hot pursuit of the nasty texts/emails from Sanders supporters to the union leader, as there was of the union member who initially said he would vote for Sanders, then was talked to by a union rep? Why was all of the Spanish not translated during the reporter’s conversation with him? This episode was a bit stomach churning. After listening to the way you approached and spoke with the culinary union members, I can understand why people don’t trust the press. It felt like you were exploiting people in order to get the show you wanted. This episode displayed an unusual lack of professionalism on the part of NYT staff that I’ve not heard before in a The Daily podcast.

Geoconda Argüello-Kline was a very fervent Hillary Clinton supporter in 2016 who has long-standing ties to the Center for American Progress, whose leader Neera Tanden was one of those in the Democratic Leadership whose leaked emails spoke of how to get rid of Sanders and who continues to be very vocal in her dislike of him personally and politically. As Ms. Argüello-Kline seems to be the face of the most adamant opposition to supporting Sen. Sanders and is most vocal about linking her abusive online interactions to Sanders supporters (as we know, on the internet, there is no way to verify who is doing what), I believe that this story should have made some of those links clear. Otherwise, it is misleading to paint Ms. Argüello-Kline's opposition as that of the majority of the workers in the Union.

Excellent piece, as usual. However, I believe there was one relevant issue that should have been explored further. We hear that the Culinary Union leader's daughter receives a nasty expletive-filled text from a "Bernie supporter", excoriating her mother (Giaconda) for not supporting Sanders. We saw similar internecine squabbling on the internet during the 2016 Presidential election, and much of it was propagated by Russian hackers and Russian bots in order to sow confusion and turmoil among the Democratic candidates. I was hoping the reporting in this piece would have taken more time to explore whether this particular "Bernie supporter" and the other "Bernie supporters" who are harassing voters are truly who they say they are.

I listened to this story closely, and it seems that the interviewers from the NYT just did not get what the union reps were saying. The rep was saying in so many words that she does NOT trust Sanders. He is asking them to give up what they fought for over a 6.5 year strike period--to just 'trust' Sanders to get them something that he 'plans' to get to them. It is also a RACE issue that the interviewer did not comprehend: The union rep said several times that she is fighting for 'people of color'....as in, Sanders have NOT done or passed or promised NOTHING during his several years in Congress that even resembles a benefit for minorities. To 'trust' yet another white politician to take what their union (those women of color) have, and replace it with something 'better'....they know that this is a pipe dream that has NEVER happened in the history of the US. Bernie argued in their faces, from the perspective of the BUSINESS that the business will save in paying health insurance, thus that extra savings will go into their pockets??!! That sounded like Trump-care/ Reaganomics to those union leaders! Businesses DO NOT trickle down savings to their workers: they pocket the money. I think it was the right thing to do for the union to NOT endorse any of these candidates. All the democratic candidates say that 'there's a need' to address minority concerns, but none of them talk about those concerns unless they are among a minority audience. Minorities know pandering when it occurs.

The Field has been somewhat of a disappointment, for the reporters have been interviewing some incredibly uninformed and inarticulate voters. Surely they can find better interviewees in the crowds.

The reporter made herself the story in this episode and it tarnished the story and she only added to the conflict.

No worries. Trump will eat him alive. Bernie hasn't thought through ANY of this. He's just a grifter doing the rabble-rousing he loves while living high on someone else's nickle. No one would be more shocked if he actually won than he. Or unprepared.

Disappointed in today’s pod...the pod are always on point, today’s was off. Several times the host referred to alleged/presumed/self identified Bernie supporters and other times referencing the same group as Bernie supporters. Considering the world we live in, considering there is no vetting of the rude obnoxious posts you should not have referred to the unknown, likely Russian tRump bots/supporters as Bernie Bros. The campaign has disavowed these out of character remarks.

These 'reporters' are unbelievably biased in their coverage of Sanders; your assessment of who supports Bernie Sanders is wrong (it is narrative, where are the facts?). And they badgered the union. I am disappointed, for the first time, in the New York times. BTW, my union advises all of us, in situations of public concern, to talk to them if the media is approaching us. They do protect us, even in disagreement. That's not controlling us. That is just plain disrespectful. This is the worst NY Times reporting I have ever heard.

So who are these “Bernie Sanders supporters” ? Is it possible that they are planted to disrupt and create havoc?

There's something unique about this situation that isn't visible to these employees. They've spent 6plus years of their lives walking a picket line in the fight of their life and livelihood to obtain recognition of their union's demands for their better standard of living. Most of the unskilled jobs in this country have lost their collective bargaining contracts over the years, or they never had one to begin with. These are clearly the ones who will welcome Bernie's idea of a better health care system. But if you've spent a huge chunk of your life picketing for higher wages and a decent health plan, it seems counter productive to give that all away for a presidential candidate's proposal to have a better health plan. These people who invested their lives into making this happen are not going to be easily swayed by this. They are in a unique situation that needs to be dealt with delicately and over time. The short version: If Bernie is able to pull off Medicare for all, then they will probably be able to see the light over time. But right after they fought for years, they're not going to jump for joy over Medicare for all. I can understand why they feel threatened. I spent 2 years picketing back in the 90s over everything we ever had in our contract starting in 1978.

What is the possibility that the nasty comments alledgedly (sp?) made by Sanders supporter to the union organizer were actually made by someone like the Trump team or even Putin in an effort to sway the election?

Wow - the NY Times is doing their absolute best to get Trump re-elected this week. How disgusting that the paper of record would not only endorse two candidates with no chance of winning before the Primary season officially began, but then to make an 'anti-endorsement' of the front runner begging voters to chose literally anyone else in the field? Wow. Not only are you fighting for a Trump re-election, you're running out of rational arguments.

The culinary workers can keep their coverage until it is replaced with the equivalent or better. There is no need to fight over this one point, especially when the Republicans are determined to make healthcare THEIR right and no one elses.

The episode starts out by treating the union leadership as real people who have fought and won for their members. Towards the closing I was surprised by the lack of empathy for the union leaders being attacked and bullied online. This seemed to show a bias for Sanders policy ideas vs the personal reality of the tough choices faced by union leadership and membership.

Is there evidence that verified 'Bernie supporters' threatened union members with violence? Could it have been meddling from overseas? If people sent death threats, they should be held accountable.

I want to second EJS's comment about the framing of "losing" their healthcare. The bigger problem is that this is the wording being used by all of the mainstream media. I love this podcast, so I know it is really a problem when something like this shows up here. No one with employer-based health insurance will "lose their insurance" (much less their healthcare!) when Medicare For All finally overcomes the power of the money accumulated by this scam of an "industry".

The Culinary Workers' healthcare plan sounds exceptional. The news media currently tend to accept as fact, without clear evidence, that all US union workers covered by a health plan love that plan. While of course we don't want to lose our insurance without a replacement, as a recently retired local union president I can attest to the many problems the members have with it. As costs continue to soar, management and labor engage in more and more difficult struggle over who should bear those costs. Member premiums, copays, and deductibles rise, and the insurer interprets ever more strictly what gets covered. Add to all of that the fear attached to losing or changing one's job, and it becomes clear how absurd is our US employer-based system of health insurance.

My advice to the unionists is the German saying borrowed from the culinary world: "A meal is always consumed colder than it's cooked." If Bernie were elected president, plenty of his lofty dreams would lose their edge in the maelstrom of Congress. Even progressive Members of Congress, like AOC, already acknowledged that much. Chances are minimal that Congress would agree to a single-payer system. Perhaps, they might agree to something like the German AOK. Bernie would have to make many more compromises. But, as any union leader knows, when you open negotiations for a new contract you must ask for twice as much as you hope to take home to your members.

Fabulous report on the Sanders Healthcare for all vs. Unions.There seems to be a schism now between what's best for me and my family vs what's best for all of US.Are we all sailing in the same ship or not and are the life preservers only for the rich who can buy there way to health safety while the rest drown in a multitude of sicknesses.If something is systemically broken does it not need overhauling?Is the remedy better or worse? When Sanders says the money the employer saves in healthcare costs will be passed on to employees in higher wages,why should we believe him? What guarantees this claim? These questions must be answered before a candidate is picked or vote phobia will settle in and the only way we get a new President is massive turnout.God help America.

While the Culinary Union does great work as a militant workplace organizer, the Culinary Union hasn’t just won healthcare benefits—it runs its own 24-hour healthcare center and pharmacy, exclusively for members. I feel like it was immensely unfair to leave this out of the reporting.

Odds are that the ugly messages purportedly from Sanders supporters are the product of dirty tricksters. If so, they achieved their purpose, namely to damage the Sanders campaign in the eyes of the union. With electronic communications, especially about politics, be skeptical about the source of the message.

NOTHING will pass the Senate even if Democrats were in the majority so relax unions....it ain't gonna happen.

Why were these reporters trying to conjure up conspiracy theories about the unions? They are playing into the stereotypes Republicans use to destroy unions. Shame.

When citizens have what they need, they are loathe to sacrifice it for a promise of something better. Warren Buffett observed: "Rational people do not risk what they have and need for what they don't have and don't need."

Incredibly disheartening moment at around 24:30. The fact that the poor guy doesn't even know what he's voting for but has been told it's "for his healthcare" seems to me to indicate the union is acting in bad faith and spreading misinformation. I understand they are protective over what they have but how long can you avoid fixing a broken system?

Great reporting Jennifer. I do feel that Geoconda should have got more push back on the question of oppressing union members 1st Amendment rights. People have been mean and ugly to me (really poor behavior, no matter who your supporting!) is scary and wrong, we can all agree on that. However, it does not address the question about whether or not the Culinary Union's policy is that a union representative must be present for Union members to speak with the media. Of those two topics, oppressing peoples 1st Amendments rights during an election cycle is a much larger problem. I feel like push back here was absolutely necessary, albeit uncomfortable. Again, great reporting Jennifer!

Erstwhile Socialists/Communists turn into Capitalists when Bernie is trying to take their stuff(healthcare) they worked for. It exposes the hypocrisy of the human heart and the fatal flaw of Socialist/Communist ideologies. Socialism and Communism will not solve the problem. The problem(Pareto Distributions) are observed in the Universe(Nature) far outside forms of human government. At least Capitalism allows individuals to create wealth (healthcare insurance at the Culinary Union) instead of forcing all the gains to Socialist/Communist leaders like Bernie to dole out as he sees fit.

What I don't hear in this is a discussion of the quality of care under a Medicare for all plan being lower than the current care level, both in the number of services available and in the quality of those services. It is difficult to take all the profit out of the system, offer it to more people, and have the quality remain unchanged.

This union shouldn't be the only ones concerned about Bernie's plan. Once everyone is eligible for medical coverage, the first hospitals that will probably start catering to the masses will be the ones already run by the government (VA hospitals, that is). Veterans that earned their healthcare through service to their country will probably be the first to suffer. I don't like Trump, but I will definitely vote for him if Bernie gets the nomination.

Very interesting episode. Lots of strange forces at play - mislead voters (I am voting for my health care plan, not the presidential candidate), the older man who was told not to talk to reporters (though it does not seem the union did this), the "Bernie" supporters who anonymously spread around hate (although is anything what it seems on twitter?). Especially poignant was the closer - the people who voted for Sanders in spite of the union endorsement seemed to want to help other people reach the same level of care they receive, and did not buy into the rhetoric that the sky would fall in a MFA scenario. Empathy is alive and well in these voters.

Is Bernie “at odds with the union” or is there actually a problem with the union internally? Interviews this week on Democracy Now! suggest that many culinary union members support Bernie but that it is union leadership who has the problem. In NC teachers are another working group who, in spite of union org and seemingly good health care find what coverage they have is wholly inadequate for current medical costs. Only Medicare for All will address that, see the Yale report.

This points out a problem with economic change, it is often viewed as part of a zero sum game, that is, if one side is to win, say the Union, then the rest of the state needs to lose. Hugh

Sanders does not want to take away these folks' healthcare, he wants to guarantee that same quality of healthcare for everyone. It is, however, perfectly reasonable for the union to be fearful that it may lose its healthcare. This is because we live in a society that makes people feel like they have to fight for what they actually deserve. The union represents people who have been bullied by industrial capitalism and have fought back, bearing the residual traumas. What is so upsetting about America is that any justice you get, you only get when you challenge the status quo. Injustice is the norm. When you have circumstances like that, people will fight for injustice, just so they can keep what they already have. I don't blame them in the least, but it's a pretty messed up situation and I think Medicare for All would go a long way toward making it better.

Thank you for a compelling account of the dilemma of the Culinary Workers’ regarding the Democratic primaries. It would really be disheartening if Bernie Sanders, probably the most 100% pro-union candidate we’ve ever had, were undone because of the attitude of the leadership of a union. As a Bernie supporter I found some of the framing of your report to be against Medicare For All. For instance, constantly talking about the union “losing” its health plan instead of “replacing” it with Medicare for All. On the whole, however, the report was pretty even-handed. It’s extremely unfortunate that the union official was attacked by people claiming to be supporters of Bernie Sanders, but I feel she greatly over reacted. Obviously, though, she’s entitled to her own opinion and reaction. I wish you would have asked more of the people how they felt about coverage for their family, friends and other people in general who don’t have such great union representation, or about what happens if a union member is fired, quits or otherwise loses coverage under the union plan.