SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
unions
May Day 2026: What Kind of Nation Will This Be?
This year's May Day rallies go beyond workers’ rights.
May 01, 2026
Unlike the rest of the world's democracies, the United States doesn't use the metric system, doesn't require employers to provide workers with paid vacations, hasn't abolished the death penalty, and doesn't celebrate May Day as an official national holiday.
Outside the US, May 1 is international workers' day, observed with speeches, rallies and demonstrations. This year, millions of workers in Europe, Asia and Latin America will take to the streets to demand higher wages, better benefits and improved working conditions.
Ironically, this celebration of working-class solidarity was started by the US labor movement and soon spread around the world, but it never earned official recognition in this country.
This year, on the heels of the three massive nationwide “No Kings” marches and rallies, millions of Americans will join forces, in thousands of cities and towns, in May Day Strong events.
The May Day Strong organizers hoping to bring Americans together to challenge the billionaires, big corporations, and the Trump administration, who have manipulated the rules to lower living standards, attack immigrants, undermine democracy, and direct tax dollars for wars rather than meeting human needs. It will be a day of rallies, marches, teach-ins, labor actions, and a refusal to participate in business as usual—because, as the organizers say, “when those at the top rig the system, collective action is how we set it right.”
Organizers expect over several thousand nonviolent actions across the country. The broad coalition behind the protests include major unions, civil rights, reproductive justice, environmental, immigrant rights, and faith groups, and tenant and community organizations, as well as Indivisible and Democratic Socialists of America.
The protest is inspired by the large day of action on January 23 that shut down much of Minneapolis by asking people not to work, shop, or attend school that day to challenge ICE’s occupation and its illegal actions (including murder) against immigrants and activists.
But the May Day Strong leaders are not calling for a general strike to shut down the economy. That tactic—allowing unions to strike in solidarity with other unions’ strikes—was banned in 1946 when Congress passed the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act over President Harry Truman’s veto. Even so, organizers view this year’s May Day events as a dress rehearsal something close to a general strike in 2028, in anticipation of the presidential and mid-term elections, but that would require the participation of many large unions who may not believe they and their members are prepared for such a militant action or the possible political backlash by the Trump administration and by voters if employers threaten to fire workers for engaging in an illegal strike. In addition, as Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch noted, “How many people would need to stop shopping to make a noticeable dent in the nearly $3 billion per day Americans spend?””
But another massive national day of protest this May Day could help inspire voters to oust more Trump Republicans in November, give Democrats a majority of seats in both the House and Senate, and lay the groundwork for a more progressive policy agenda if the Democrats take back the White House in two years.
In doing so, they will be honoring the original May Day, which was born of the movement for an eight-hour workday. After the Civil War, unregulated capitalism ran rampant in America. It was the Gilded Age, a time of merger mania, increasing concentration of wealth and growing political influence by corporate power brokers known as Robber Barons. New technologies made possible new industries, which generated great riches for the fortunate few, but at the expense of workers, many of them immigrants, who worked long hours, under dangerous conditions, for little pay.
As the gap between the rich and other Americans widened dramatically, workers began to resist in a variety of ways. The first major wave of labor unions pushed employers to limit the workday to ten hours and then later down to eight hours. The 1877 strike by tens of thousands of railroad, factory and mine workers—which shut down the nation's major industries and was brutally suppressed by the corporations and their friends in government—was the first of many mass actions to demand living wages and humane working conditions. By 1884, the campaign had gained enough momentum that the predecessor to the American Federation of Labor adopted a resolution at its annual meeting, "that eight hours shall constitute legal day's labor from and after May 1, 1886."
On the appointed date, unions and radical groups orchestrated strikes and large-scale demonstrations in cities across the country. More than 500,000 workers went on strike or marched in solidarity and many more people protested in the streets. In Chicago, a labor stronghold, at least 30,000 workers struck. Rallies and parades across the city more than doubled that number, and the May 1 demonstrations continued for several days. The protests were mostly nonviolent, but they included skirmishes with strikebreakers, company-hired thugs and police.
On May 3, at a rally outside the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company factory, police fired on the crowd, killing at least two workers. The next day, at a rally at Haymarket Square to protest the shootings, police moved in to clear the crowd. Someone threw a bomb at the police, killing at least one officer. Another seven policemen were killed during the ensuing riot, and police gunfire killed at least four protesters and injured many others.
After a controversial investigation, seven anarchists were sentenced to death for murder, while another was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The anarchists won global notoriety, being seen as martyrs by many radicals and reformers, who viewed the trial and executions as politically motivated.
Within a few years, unions and radical groups around the world had established May Day as an international holiday to commemorate the Haymarket martyrs and continue the struggle for the eight-hour day, workers' rights, and social justice.
In the United States, however, the burgeoning Knights of Labor, uneasy with May Day's connection to anarchists and other radicals, adopted another day to celebrate workers' rights. In 1887, Oregon was the first state to make Labor Day an official holiday, celebrated in September. Other states soon followed. Unions sponsored parades to celebrate Labor Day, but such one-day festivities didn't make corporations any more willing to grant workers decent conditions. To make their voices heard, workers had to resort to massive strikes, typically put down with brutal violence by government troops.
In 1894, the American Railway Union, led by Eugene Debs, went on strike against the Pullman Palace Car Company to demand lower rents (Pullman was a company town that owned its employees' homes) and higher pay following huge layoffs and wage cuts. In solidarity with the Pullman workers, railroad workers across the country boycotted the trains with Pullman cars, paralyzing the nation's economy as well as its mail service. President Grover Cleveland declared the strike a federal crime and called out 12,000 soldiers to break the strike. They crushed the walkout and killed at least two protesters. Six days later, Cleveland—facing worker protests for his repression of the Pullman strikers—signed a bill creating Labor Day as an official national holiday in September. He hoped that giving the working class a day off to celebrate one Monday a year might pacify them.
For most of the 20th century, Labor Day was reserved for festive parades, picnics and speeches sponsored by unions in major cities. But contrary to what President Cleveland had hoped, American workers, their families and allies, found other occasions to mobilize for better working conditions and a more humane society. America witnessed massive strike waves throughout the century, including militant general strikes and occupations. These included a general strike in Seattle in 1919, the 1934 San Francisco general strike, led by the longshoremen's union; a strike of about 400,000 textile workers that same year; militant sit-down strikes in 1937 by autoworkers in Flint, Michigan, women workers at Woolworth's department stores in New York, aviation workers in Los Angeles, and others, and the largest strike wave in US history in 1946, triggered by pent-up demands following World War Two.
May 1 faded away as a day of protest. From the 1920s through the 1950s, radical groups sought to keep the tradition alive with parades and other events, but the mainstream labor movement and most liberal organizations kept their distance, making May Day an increasingly marginal affair. In 1958, in the midst of the cold war, President Dwight Eisenhower proclaimed May 1 as Loyalty Day. Each subsequent president has issued a similar proclamation, although few Americans know about or celebrate the day.
Since 2001, American unions and immigrant rights activists have resurrected May 1 as a day of protest around both workers’ rights and immigrant rights. That year, millions of people in over 100 cities—including more than a million in Los Angeles, 200,000 in New York and 300,000 in Chicago—participated in May Day demonstrations.
The huge turnout was catalyzed by a bill, sponsored by Representative James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) and passed by the House the previous December, that would have classified as a felon anyone who helped undocumented immigrants enter or remain in the United States. Since then, immigrant workers and their allies have adopted May Day as an occasion for protest.
In 2006, organized launched a protest they called “A Day Without Immigrants,” which was also termed the “Great American Boycott.” In many cities, workers refused to go to work, high school students walked out of their classrooms and into the street, while consumers shut down businesses that depended on immigrant workers.
In 2017, activists organized another “Day Without Immigrants” protest to dramatize the importance of immigrants to the American economy and protest Trump’s plans to build a border wall and deport millions of undocumented immigrants. The organizers called for immigrants and allies not to go to work, to avoid spending money, and keep children home from school.
"It was mostly immigrants who led the first May Day movement for the eight-hour day. Now a new generation of immigrant workers have revitalized and brought May Day back to life," observed California State Senator María Elena Durazo, the former head of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.
Although the labor movement fell on hard times starting in the 1950s, it nevertheless helped guarantee that more Americans would share in the nation’s post-war prosperity and join the middle class. Moreover, the civil rights, feminist, environmental and gay rights movements, and the more recent immigrant rights movement, drew important lessons from labor movement tactics and built coalitions with organized labor to advance their goals.
America is now in the midst of a new Gilded Age with a new group of corporate Robber Barons, many of them operating on a global scale. The top of the income scale has the biggest concentration of income and wealth since 1928. Several decades of corporate-backed assaults on unions have left only six percent of private sector employees with union cards, down from about one-third of all workers in the 1950s. More than half of America's 15 million union members now work for government (representing 33 percent of all government employees), so business groups and conservative politicians, including Trump, have targeted public sector unions for destruction.
Despite this, we’ve seen a recent resurgence of activism among rank-and-file workers at fast-food chains, Starbucks, Amazon, Ford, General Motors and Stellantis, Volkswagen, Boeing, Trader Joe’s, Apple, Barnes and Noble, Chipotle, Disneyland, Kaiser Permanente, UPS, Uber and LYFT, REI, film companies and TV studios, meatpacking companies, major hospitals and universities, school districts, and other employers. They have waged strikes, walkouts and union recognition campaigns to win better pay and working conditions.
Public opinion in solidly behind these demands. The decline of union membership is not due to Americans’ opposition to unions. A recent Gallup poll found that 68% of Americans support unions. Support is particularly high among Americans between 18 and 34 years old, 72% of whom embrace unions as a vehicle to address economic inequality and workplace problems. About two-thirds (64%) of Americans think the federal minimum wage—which has been stuck at $7.25 an hour since 2009—should be increased to $17.
The biggest obstacle to a union resurgence is federal labor law. American workers understand that employers resort to a variety of antiunion tactics—including firing employees illegally—to thwart unionization efforts. And there’s the rub. Americans have far fewer rights at work than employees in other democratic societies. Current federal laws are an impediment to union organizing rather than a protector of workers’ rights. The rules are stacked against workers, making it extremely difficult for even the most talented organizers to win union elections. Under current law, and with Trump stacking the National Labor Relations Board with anti-union members, any employer with a clever attorney can stall union elections, giving management time to scare the living daylights out of potential recruits.
This year's May Day rallies go beyond workers’ rights. They will focus on issues like stopping the billionaire takeover and rampant corruption of the Trump administration, protecting Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs working people rely on, fully funding public schools, healthcare, and housing for all, and stopping the attacks on communities, including policies that target immigrants and people of color. It will also build momentum for a large-scale voter mobilization effort to elect liberals and progressives in the November mid-terms.
“It isn't just about immigrant rights. It isn't just about workers’ rights on the job or even about raising the standard of living for all workers,” said Durazo. “It's about what kind of country we want to be.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Can the Dem Win Back Working-Class Voters? Run Union Candidates
A new report finds that running and electing candidates from the labor movement is one of the most viable and under-explored paths available to both unions and the Democratic Party.
Mar 14, 2026
The Democratic Party’s slow shift away from the working class undoubtedly contributed to its recent electoral defeats. Reconnecting with the party’s foundational working-class base is essential for its survival, and a new report from the Center for Working-Class Politics, Arizona State University’s Center for Work and Democracy, and Jacobin shows that getting more union members and leaders on the ballot could provide a path to doing just that.
The Democratic Party’s loss in 2024 has sparked a wave of soul-searching about how the party can recover support groups of voters they could previously take for granted, such as Black and Latino men. Like so many of the Democrats’ previously assumed voting blocs, union workers are clearly no longer an easy win for the party, with more than 40% of union workers reporting voting for Donald Trump in 2024.
Our new report—which analyzes congressional candidates from 2010 to 2022, union campaign finance data, and interviews with current and former elected officials with union backgrounds—finds that running and electing candidates from the labor movement is one of the most viable and under-explored paths available to both unions and the Democratic Party.
Several key findings illustrate the current state of union candidacy and suggest how the Democratic Party and unions could change their approach to achieve further success in future elections.
Our report identifies all congressional candidates between 2010 and 2022 and reveals that only 5% have any union connection.
First, unions’ donations to candidates now comprise a much smaller slice of total campaign donations. They’ve fallen fivefold, from nearly 15% of total party contributions in the late 1990s to less than 3% by 2022—not because unions are giving less but because individual donations have risen massively.
In recent years, when unions do donate, they’re inclined to play it safe, giving mostly to incumbents rather than pro-union challengers. And in the rare instances they back challengers, they typically back whoever looks most likely to win, leaving the shaping of the candidate pool to the Democratic Party.
Second, candidates with union backgrounds advocate more strongly for the working class—both on the campaign trail and in office—than those without union backgrounds. As candidates, they speak more to worker issues, and as representatives, they advocate more progressive economic legislation compared with their non-union colleagues—regardless of party.
Further, our interviews with candidates and elected officials from union backgrounds highlight that experience they’ve gained specifically through their union involvement gives them an advantage in their knowledge of workplace issues, credibility to speak on labor matters, and an ability to build coalitions and be effective policymakers.
With their ongoing, already established institutional relationships with unions, they’re able to center workers’ rights in their policy plans (strengthening minimum wage laws, paid leave and benefits, worker safety regulations, and card-check laws) and keep open, fluid channels of communication with organized labor. Said relationships also give them a leg up in grassroots organization, inspiring higher turnout and deeper commitment from union members.
Third, despite their strategic value, union candidates and elected officials are not common. Our report identifies all congressional candidates between 2010 and 2022 and reveals that only 5% have any union connection.
That scarcity is not inevitable. Unions have the financial resources, organizing infrastructure, and institutional reach to actively grow a candidate pipeline if they choose to deploy them. Indeed, in critical open-seat races, unions already donate more to Democratic candidates with union backgrounds than to other Democrats.
In addition to donations, unions can lend their organizing infrastructure to directly power union-member electoral campaigns through candidate recruitment, member canvassing, and early financial backing. They can also invest in labor-led candidate schools to build a deep and sturdy pipeline, demystifying the political process for working-class candidates and increasing both the number of union candidates and their electoral success.
The report illustrates two state-level initiatives that show us what can work when unions take a more proactive approach in building a pipeline of candidates. New Jersey’s AFL-CIO Labor Candidate Program has resulted in over 1,300 election victories with a 76% win rate over 20 years. Alaska’s Arthur A. Allman Labor Candidate School has already seen eight of its trainees elected to office since its 2022 inauguration.
The common ground between these two programs: They handle the training themselves rather than leaving it to party consultants and approach candidate development as a sustainable investment for long-term strategy rather than something reserved for election cycles.
Our analysis shows that unions already have an asset they’re not using. Though their membership and formal leverage have weakened, public trust in labor unions has reached its highest point in 50 years, at a time when public confidence in almost all other political structures has essentially collapsed.
Gallup polls show public approval of unions is at its highest rate in over 60 years, with an average of about 70% of Americans expressing their support for unions last year. A GBAO poll conducted on behalf of the AFL-CIO in 2023 found that 88% of Americans under 30 view unions favorably—a record-breaking level of support.
American faith in union politics is there. Will organized labor take up the mantle?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Labor Needs a Declaration of Political Independence
No matter how you slice the demographics, aside from Democratic and Republican Party operatives, a new working-class political party independent of the Democrats and Republicans is really popular.
Feb 23, 2026
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any [part] of Government [—including its political parties—] becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new [parties], laying [their] foundation on such principles and organizing [their] powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
It’s not a secret: About 45% of labor union members voted for President Donald Trump in 2024. In unions with fewer minority workers the percentage was substantially higher. More importantly, most union members no longer identify with the Democratic Party. In fact, they are downright hostile to it. In our YouGov poll of 3,000 voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, 70% held negative views of the Democrats.
Why so much hostility? Very few respondents said anything about wokeness or immigration. Much of the bitterness was related to the Democrats failing to live up to their promises and losing touch with everyday people. My research also shows that mass layoffs, especially those caused by trade with China and Mexico after North American Free Trade Agreement, have soured voters on the Democrats.
That leaves progressive union leaders with the difficult task of lining up their members for the candidates they think will represent the political interests of their members—which, because of the Republicans’ overwhelming antipathy to organized labor, almost always better align with the Democrats. Despite, it should be said, their failings. For the fall midterms this year, union leaders will be 100% in support of the Democrats, as they hope to check the power of Trumpism. How can they do that effectively given all this negativity?
A different and I think more promising approach is to open up a discussion about alternative politics and seriously explore the prospects of building a new political party of working people.
The usual approach involves various procedures that eventually lead the membership to the Democrats. One union, for example, holds meetings during which the rank-and-file defines an agenda. The leadership then uses that agenda to evaluate candidates, who conveniently all turn out to be Democrats. Another union conducts educational programs that are, one way or another, designed to help the membership understand why the Democrats are more favorable to the working class than Republicans. This isn’t hard or even that manipulative, but rarely do these methods effectively appeal to those who disdain the Dems.
The preferred option for many unions is to avoid political discussions entirely for fear the ensuing debate might tear the union apart—pitting MAGA and non-MAGA members against each other. Better to duck and cover, hold onto the solidarity you have, and hope the storm will soon pass.
A different and I think more promising approach is to open up a discussion about alternative politics and seriously explore the prospects of building a new political party of working people. Union leadership can easily justify such an undertaking as a long-term project necessary to mobilize working-class political power and find solidarity around the issues that matter most to all working people.
The Hunger for Independence
Polling shows that such an effort would be well received. Overall, 57% of the respondents in our YouGov survey support the idea of an independent political organization for workers. Here are the results for union-oriented voters:
| Support | Oppose | Not Sure | |
| Currently union member | 58% | 16% | 25% |
| Former union member | 59% | 21% | 19% |
| Not a union member but would support efforts to form a union at my workplace | 80% | 8% | 12% |
(The overwhelming support from those who want to join a union should get the attention of union leaders for whom organizing new members is of the highest priority.)
The idea is even attractive to 2024 Trump voters: 40% support a new party, as do 42% of those who identify as Republicans.
No matter how you slice the demographics, aside from Democratic and Republican Party operatives, a new political party independent of the Democrats and Republicans is really popular.
That’s why opening up a discussion about how to build a new working-class party stands a decent chance of increasing solidarity among the various political groups in the union rank-and-file. It allows leadership to respond to what the workers really want—a party that puts their needs and interests at its center rather than adopting watered-down policies designed to please billionaire donors.
And it makes room for some very frank discussions:
“Look, I understand that many of you no longer want to vote for Democrats. You want a new party independent of the Democrats and Republicans. But until we build that new party, there are some solid pro-labor candidates that we need to support if we’re to have any chance of passing labor law reform and protecting jobs. We are pressuring the Democrats and the Republicans to run more working-class candidates. Meanwhile, let’s start the process of building a new working-class party. We can do both right now.”
If unions seriously committed resources to building, or at least exploring, an independent political formation, the political credibility of union leaders would likely increase. It also would create a plausible, easy to understand political argument: Long term, we want a working-class party that represents our interests and needs. Short-term, we support candidates who represent our interests and needs!
I see three main problems with charting this new course. The first is that many union leaders are deeply entwined with the Democratic Party leadership. They have personal ties. They attend common events. They see the world similarly. The idea of a new party feels like a betrayal. As one labor leader told me, “These are the only political friends we have.”
Wouldn’t it be better to build with the membership a vision that puts working people in the center of the economy rather than as an afterthought of trickle-down two-party politics?
The second obstacle is one of resources and bandwidth. Union leaders have their hands full. They are always dealing with difficult employers, complex contracts, union organizing drives, and internal union problems. Adding a new alternative politics project is likely to be seen as beyond their capacities.
The third issue is the fear of being a spoiler—that criticizing Democrats, let alone starting a new party for workers, would take votes away from the Democrats and elect Republicans. That’s what most labor leaders believe happened in 2000 when Ralph Nader ran for president. They hold him accountable for taking enough votes away from Al Gore in Florida to throw the state and the election to George Bush.
While the spoiler issue may be valid in presidential contests and in closely contested races for Congress, it is not relevant in the 130 congressional districts in which the Republicans usually win by 25% or more. In these districts there is effectively no Democratic Party to spoil. And it’s in those districts that a new working-class party is most needed. It would only take a handful of congressional victories for working-class candidates to gain the controlling votes in a closely divided House of Representatives.
Of course, running 130 congressional campaigns is no small task, but there are smaller, more doable first steps that could help union leaders with their political dilemma. They could start by holding workshops with their local leaders and rank-and-file to discuss the need for a new independent political organization for union members and indeed all working people. Such discussions would allow members to air their grievances while signaling that the leadership is willing to listen and forge a new independent path.
Such workshops will be part of a new National Worker Educational Campaign for Independent Politics that my colleagues and I are launching this spring.
Many say that forging a new party is unrealistic and that we are stuck with the Democrats. But to me that seems likely to further alienate much of the union membership.
Wouldn’t it be better to rekindle political hope by opening up discussion?
Wouldn’t it be better to let memberships discuss their needs and aspirations and how they would like to relate to politics?
Wouldn’t it be better to build with the membership a vision that puts working people in the center of the economy rather than as an afterthought of trickle-down two-party politics?
It sure beats hoping that the MAGA membership just fades away.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular