Spiked runs a column ruminating on the highly unusual fact of the Teamsters' President speaking at the Republican Convention. It wanders off into deep waters trying to explain the choice. I have a theory of my own, based entirely in Teamsters self-interest.
Much of America's goods move by truck, if not from the factory all the way to the retailer, at least from a regional warehouse to the retailer. Those trucks are driven by teamsters many of whom belong to the union.
The Democrats want to basically shut down transportation based on internal combustion engines, and do everything with electricity. If they succeed, they'll do away with most trucks because electric power isn't practical for trucks, or many cars for that matter.
On the other hand, rail transport powered by electricity is highly practical and much rail traffic is already powered by volts, not diesel. To get to a mostly electrified world most freight will need to move almost to the retailer's dock by rail, as it once did. Electric trucks will be an almost entirely local short-hall proposition.
When diesel trucks go away, so will many, perhaps most teamsters jobs. If any unions profit, they will be those representing railway workers, not the teamsters.
Who opposes a nearly truck-free future? Republicans. Perhaps the Teamsters need us more than we need them, if they have the sense to see the future implications of the two parties' present policies.
