By Jim Newton, CalMatters

This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

One of the standing assumptions of Los Angeles politics — and urban, liberal politics generally — has been that organized labor holds outsized influence on the outcomes of elections. Like all political assumptions, however, that one bears periodic reconsideration, and the municipal elections underway in LA this year offer a new test of it.

Labor has a particular place in Los Angeles civic life. In a city without many discernable sources of power, it supplies one, organizing members to maximize their engagement and participation and to help fashion a government — and, more broadly, a society — that reflects their interests and concerns. It is a portal for immigrants, a gathering set of institutions for community and a concerted voice in politics. All of that has been true at least since the 1980s.

Sometimes, however, pundits and even political operators get stuck in old assumptions. It is commonplace, for instance, to read about the “politically powerful Police Protective League” without questioning what that power means. Does “politically powerful” mean that the league can elect whomever it wants as the city’s mayor?

Tell that to Rick Caruso, who ran with the league’s support in 2022, only to get walloped by then-Congressmember Karen Bass. Neither the “politically powerful” union nor the more than $100 million of his own money could get Caruso anywhere close to victory in that race. He lost by 10 points and took a pass this year on a rematch. So much for political power.

But the league is just one of many unions. 

Labor unions traditionally supply money and support for their candidates in the form of volunteers and contributions. Los Angeles carpenters, for instance, were major backers of Bass in 2022, as was the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. 

Both of those unions are more lukewarm about Bass this time, their leaders feeling slighted by decisions Bass has made regarding union rules in housing construction and selection of a general manager for the city’s Department of Water and Power, as well as debates over pensions for that department’s workers.

Many members of those unions remain supportive of Bass, but some of their leaders feel ignored by the mayor, who not only defied them but did little to explain herself to them. They are unlikely to be there in force for her this time, a particularly tough hit for Bass, a politician who has a poor reputation as a fundraiser.

That’s not to say labor has abandoned her. The county Federation of Labor, which brings unions together under its umbrella, is solidly in support of Bass. And many public employee unions can be expected to stick with her. Yvonne Wheeler, who heads the federation and is an enthusiastic Bass supporter, affirmed the group’s support for her after Councilwoman Nithya Raman surprised LA’s political class by jumping into the mayor’s race at the last minute in February. 

“With Donald Trump’s ongoing war against the people of Los Angeles, our working families and immigrant communities, now is not the time for distractions from a political opportunist — especially one who backed the Mayor’s re-election campaign just weeks ago,” Wheeler said in announcing the federation’s support for Bass. 

That swipe, labelling Raman a “political opportunist,” suggests the depth of the federation’s antipathy toward the only opponent who poses a credible threat to the mayor. It sounds personal, not just political.

Bass also enjoys the support of many prominent labor leaders, current and former, including the endorsement of State Sen. María Elena Durazo, the most important of all Los Angeles labor leaders over the past quarter century. Durazo, currently a candidate for county supervisor, stood next to Wheeler when the federation, which Durazo once headed, announced it is backing Bass.

But the federation does not control its member unions, and others could still break from the mayor. Raman is a democratic socialist, after all, and labor’s historic alliances with social justice campaigns — the Living Wage and protection of immigrants, to name two — make Raman a natural recipient of support, especially if she were not challenging an incumbent with labor bonafides of her own.

That could spell trouble for Bass, depriving her of money she needs to spread her message and votes in a campaign that could be close. Again, however, those risks may be smaller than they once were. 

Start with money: Bass is not great at raising it, and she’s lost some of the deeper pockets that helped her to victory in 2022. But she’s running against a weak field of candidates and has the name recognition and tools of incumbency at her disposal. 

Moreover, Bass has a record to point to, and even if it wasn’t enough to chase off every opponent, it’s one with plenty to be proud of: Homelessness is down, albeit modestly; crime is at historic lows (Los Angeles had fewer murders last year than at any time since the 1960s), and Bass has led the opposition to President Trump, whose attacks on Los Angeles and its immigrant communities have made him a pariah. 

If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, well, Karen Bass has lots of friends.

If labor were united, powerful and uncontested, and if it rallied behind an opponent to Bass, her record might not be enough. A well-financed and broadly supported Bass critic could capitalize on the slowness of this administration to build housing, could question the LAPD’s role in protecting the city against federal incursions, could tap into the general malaise that so many residents feel about a city that seems to fall short of its potential. 

But all of that rests on two assumptions: That labor could unite and that it retains its old power. Neither of those is true today just because it once was.

Today, many union members live outside the city. Housing prices make it very difficult for a city clerk or a hotel maid or even a construction worker to live in Los Angeles. 

Unions split their support among candidates — the carpenters and hotel workers may back different horses, undermining the idea of a “labor candidate.” And labor sometimes antagonizes other voters: The Police Protective League brings money to a campaign, but also carries the mixed help of aligning its chosen candidate with the police, who are viewed unfavorably by many of the city’s younger and more liberal voters.

Labor’s shaky influence, meanwhile, has attracted new entries into LA’s power matrix, echoing or sometimes foreshadowing national trends. Today, the Democratic Socialists of America’s Los Angeles chapter has demonstrated organizing strength, discipline, patience and resolve. And new organizations, including Thrive LA, are edging into the fray, sniffing the power vacuum and the opportunities it creates.

Los Angeles remains a labor city. Unions continue to occupy a place of influence over civic, cultural and political life. Labor can and still does pick winners in city council races and other contests. It will help pick the next mayor. But nothing stays the same forever in politics.

“Labor is very important in every race,” Los Angeles City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, a thoughtful observer of LA politics, said this week. 

He cited the impact of housing prices and the emergence of new groups as stresses on the traditional place of labor. And he noted that unions, like other players in politics, are searching for new ways to have their voices heard. 

“A lot of other people that weren’t important before are also important now,” he said. “It’s changing. How (labor) influences and what influence it has are being negotiated right now.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.