Why do union workers back MAGA politics? A labor leader, Evette Avery Herrod, exposes the education gap and policy realities impacting wages, pensions, and rights.
MAGA vs Labor
Watch Politics Done Right T.V. here.
Podcasts (Video — Audio)
Summary
A revealing conversation exposes a dangerous disconnect between working-class interests and political alignment, as a union steward explains why some workers support forces that undermine their own livelihoods.
- Many union members are perceived as MAGA supporters, but that perception is often exaggerated by skewed polling participation.
- Anti-union political forces consistently oppose worker protections, pensions, and collective bargaining rights.
- Union leadership has not always done enough to educate members on how policy directly impacts their contracts and benefits.
- Legislative victories that saved pensions and benefits have overwhelmingly come without Republican support.
- Grassroots education and organizing remain the most effective tools to realign workers with their own economic interests.
Workers hold immense power, but without clear, consistent education about policy and economic reality, many end up voting against their own survival. The path forward demands organizing, truth-telling, and rebuilding class consciousness from the ground up.
Premium Content (Complimentary)
The conversation cuts through the noise and lands squarely on one of the most troubling contradictions in modern American politics: working-class union members aligning themselves with political movements that actively work to dismantle the very protections unions fought to secure. The union steward does not mince words. This contradiction is not just ironic—it is dangerous.
At the heart of the issue lies a fundamental failure of information and education. The steward explains that while some members lean toward MAGA politics, the narrative that most union workers do so is inflated by misleading polling. When only a tiny fraction of a 1.2 million-member union participates in a survey, the results do not reflect the collective will—they manufacture a narrative.
This distortion matters because it shapes perception, and perception shapes behavior. When workers believe that “everyone else” supports anti-union politics, it normalizes that position. It creates a false consensus that weakens solidarity—the very foundation of union power.
But the deeper issue goes beyond perception. It goes to the core of political literacy. The steward lays out a reality that should be obvious but often gets obscured: anti-union politicians consistently oppose the policies that sustain working-class life. From pensions to healthcare to labor protections, the legislative record speaks clearly. In one striking example, the steward notes that pension protections were preserved through Democratic votes, with zero Republican support.
That fact alone should settle the debate. Yet it does not.
Why? Because facts do not automatically translate into understanding. Information must be contextualized. Workers need to see how policy decisions connect directly to their paychecks, their healthcare, their retirement security. Without that connection, politics becomes abstract—reduced to slogans, identity, and cultural signaling rather than material reality.
This is where union leadership comes under scrutiny. The steward suggests that unions have not consistently fulfilled their responsibility to educate members. That failure creates a vacuum—one that gets filled by misinformation, partisan media, and ideological narratives that distract from economic truth.
Research supports this dynamic. Institutions like the Economic Policy Institute have shown that union membership correlates strongly with higher wages, better benefits, and greater economic security. At the same time, decades of policy—from right-to-work laws to attacks on collective bargaining—have systematically weakened unions, largely through conservative political efforts. When workers support those efforts, they are not exercising informed choice; they are responding to a distorted understanding of reality.
Similarly, the Pew Research Center has documented how misinformation spreads more easily in polarized environments, especially when individuals rely on ideologically filtered media ecosystems. That phenomenon helps explain how working-class voters can internalize narratives that contradict their own economic interests.
The solution, as the steward emphasizes, is not condemnation—it is education and organizing. Change does not happen through top-down messaging alone. It happens through conversations, relationships, and consistent engagement. It happens when workers talk to each other on the shop floor, when stewards explain contracts in plain language, and when unions reclaim their role as political educators—not just negotiators.
This is not a quick fix. It requires patience and persistence. It requires confronting uncomfortable truths and challenging deeply held beliefs. But it is also the only path forward.
The working class has always been strongest when it understands its collective power. History proves this. The labor victories of the past—minimum wage laws, workplace safety regulations, pensions—did not come from political confusion. They came from clarity, unity, and action.
Today’s challenge is to rebuild that clarity in an era flooded with misinformation. The stakes are enormous. When workers vote against their own interests, they weaken not just themselves, but the entire labor movement. They make it easier for corporations and political elites to consolidate power.
But the conversation also offers hope. It shows that there are leaders within the movement who understand the problem and are actively working to fix it. They are organizing. They are educating. They are fighting to realign the working class with its own future.
That fight will define the next chapter of labor in America.
