I am not going to say too much about whether I agree or disagree with the entirely self-serving, hypocritical, "Only I Can Save You" decision by his lordship NYC Mayor (or is that "God"?) Michael Bloomberg to reverse his position on term limits and seek a change in the law that would bar him from running for a third term (personally, I’ve always opposed term limits–we do have term limits and they are called "elections"–but I also believe in the voters’ right to decide). The main interesting issue to me this morning is: assuming the City Council does change the law allowing term-limited incumbents to run for a third term, what will labor do in the race for mayor? And there is a complicated answer to that.

   To be blunt, it may not matter what labor does if Bloomberg is willing to spend $100 million, $150 million…pick a number…to win. He will financially swamp any obvious opposition (unless George Soros gets into the game in a "I’ll-see-you-and-raise-you-race" of billionaires who can claim they know how to manage money…and Soros, at least, had a semi-intelligent argument yesterday in the Financial Times about how to deal with the banking crisis…hmmm…now there’s a thought? Mayor Bloomberg, you are so concerned about the city having a person at the city’s helm who understands banking, why not recruit Soros and show what a democrat you are?).

   But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume someone does take the challenge and run against Bloomberg. Who could that opponent count on as labor allies? A few observations:

Building Trades: Nope. Short of announcing he wants to build a nuclear reactor in Central Park, Bloomberg has made the construction unions very happy with his Edifice Complex–build anything, anywhere, no matter how bad it might be for the community. A crippled economy is not good news for the construction mania in the city–though it is good news for the beleagured communities who have had to fight against two stadiums (one won, lost won) and countless other new projects–but the Trades would rather have Bloomberg in office to promote whatever kind of development might happen from 2009 and beyond.

Teachers: when he ran for re-election, Bloomberg reached an election eve deal with the Teachers that basically guaranteed the union would not support his then-opponent, Freddie Ferrer. But, the Teachers are very unhappy with Joel Klein, the Education Commissioner, and want him gone. Just in the past few days, Klein and UFT prez Randi Weingarten exchanged some testy letters about teacher placement and, generally, the union and its members hold Klein in very low regard. As well, Bloomberg also opposed the Teachers’ massive unionization campaign of 28,000 childcare providers (they won that drive, helped, in large part, by Eliot Spitzer’s executive order making those workers eligible for union representation).

Again, Bloomberg may not care at all since he can spend a boatload of money. But, if the the mood of the public remains negative about Lord Bloomberg’s about-face on term limits, the UFT’s formidable get-out-the-vote political operation is something to contend with. So, does his Lordship make nice with the UFT by thanking Klein for his service to the city and finding a person more palatable to the UFT? I wouldn’t count on it.

DC37: Another union that endorsed Bloomberg’s re-election in 2005–but may feel very differently now. Bloomberg opposed a big piece of legislation the union was seeking in Albany: allowing DC37 members to retroactively buy into a retirement plan. With 120,000 members, lots of voters. But, it’s not clear how potent its political mobilization is, and whether its members would follow the union’s lead in an electoral fight against his Lordship.

Transport Workers: a lock to oppose Bloomberg. This may be ancient history…oh, all the way back to 2005…but, after so many unions supported Bloomberg in 2005, he turned around just two months after the election and attempted to destroy the TWU during the transit strike (you may refresh your memory here and here). And his Lordship’s vendetta against the union hasn’t stopped: even though everyone, including the Transit Authority supports a reinstatement of the union’s automatic dues check-off (which it lost by violating the odious Taylor Law, which prohibits public workers from striking), his Lordship has continued to oppose the reinstatement, seriously hobbling the union’s financial strength.

1199: I suspect 1199, which supported Ferrer in 2005, would support a credible challenger, maybe even any challenger. But, who knows?

SEIU 32BJ: the very large building services local. Supported Bloomberg’s re-election in 2005. I’m going to guess that the issue here is that 32BJ isn’t necessarily in love with his Lordship but, absent a credible challenger, the issue for the union will be: does it go all out in a fight against a guy who will spend a fortune to win?

   General thoughts: to the extent Bloomberg sees a public backlash that can’t be stamped out with a $100 million bribe–oh, sorry, I meant to say "campaign fund"–he might need to patch up some alliances. There’s a question about simple partisanship: his Lordship now considers himself an independent but will a potential opponent make any in-roads by reminding unions–who, with a likely more Democratic-looking Washington, D.C. scene, will be pushing, along with their national counterparts, for pro-union legislation like the Employee Free Choice Act–that his Lordship happily opened up his copious wallet for the Evil Empire (no, not the Yankees, though he did shower that team with a lot of bennies, too), a party that is bent on the labor movement’s destruction?

   But…who is that credible opponent? The Three Blind Mice–Billy Thompson, Anthony Weiner and Chris Quinn–are…how can I say this charitably…a combination of lacking in vision beyond poll-tested soundbites about "saving the middle class" and have provided zero opposition to his Lordship (and, in Quinn’s case, it’s hard to know where she differs with his Lordship…okay, maybe his Lordship actually knows where the budget money is spent and has a staff that listens to his directives on the budget, unlike, apparently, Quinn). None of them scream "lay your union out there for me because I’ll win".

   His Lordship’s potential run for a third term raises the larger issue about labor’s place in the city: does it consider itself a unifying voice for a progressive vision for the future–which means a standard of living and workers’ rights for all, not just union members? And is that vision consistent with supporting a billionaire, who shows contempt for democracy and brings a philosophy of the "free market" to bear in his dealing with workers. Yeah, the "free market" philosophy–that’s worked out well, hasn’t it?