In the bigger picture, Culinary 226’s antagonism—they’re an affiliate of UNITE HERE, an international union—is unusual. Five UNITE HERE locals in California have endorsed Sanders, and some of their locals have expressed support for Medicare for All. The union has stressed that healthcare is a right, including at Presidential town halls hosted by UNITE HERE and Culinary 226, and that every worker—regardless of their union membership—deserves it. Analysis of presidential campaign contributions shows UNITE HERE staff heavily favor the Vermont democratic socialist. The union has been on the militant edge of the labor movement and has pushed the envelope (including in Culinary) on issues like immigration justice. So why is Culinary 226 wrong on healthcare?

Part of it could be how they build power. Culinary 226 offers healthcare, job training, home loans, and virtually everything else their members need; as a consequence, their membership is closely tied to the union. That’s part of why Culinary 226 boasts such high, engaged membership in a “Right-to-Work” state. Being part of Culinary 226 is a point of pride and a pathway to economic security for many immigrant workers, and the healthcare they’ve struck and fought to build is a key part of their identity as a union. With Culinary Health serving as a cornerstone of the union’s identity and organizing, any threat to their healthcare—even a perceived threat from potential allies on the Left—seems like a threat to the union itself.

Culinary 226 is also used to high pressure, ruthless power politics: fighting casino operators is ugly business. With Sanders grabbing status as the frontrunner after popular vote victories in Iowa and New Hampshire and heading to a likely victory in Nevada, Culinary 226 may feel they need leverage to ensure he addresses their concerns. Pressuring the frontrunner—especially a candidate inclined to cater more to unions than most—may seem like a way to extract guarantees on a healthcare transition. So far, Sanders has yet to publicly address in detail how his proposal will impact union healthcare trusts: a bewildering refusal that has contributed to the tension between his campaign and Culinary 226.

But no matter their reasons, in choosing this fight Culinary 226 stands alone, and they don’t seem to mind. Although the union may feel they’re serving the interests of their members by picking a fight with the Democratic frontrunner, they’ve arguably undermined UNITE HERE’s political credibility and diverted attention while the union wages an uphill battle against airline catering contractors—to say nothing of the damage done to the relationship between organized labor and the progressive Left.

By choosing to fight against a popular frontrunner in opposition to universal healthcare, they’re foregoing an opportunity to make the healthcare battles that they've fought and sacrificed for a thing of the past—not just for them, but for all workers. In doing so, they're reinforcing negative perceptions of unions as self-serving, politically cynical actors, isolating the movement in a moment in which positive public perception of organized labor is soaring. While that may not matter to unions thinking in the short term, it should matter a great deal in the long term to labor unionists committed to the movement’s growth.

In the end, they may well have nothing to show for their efforts except burned bridges if Sanders claims the nomination.

Culinary 226’s decision to throw the gauntlet is a cautionary tale: even powerful, militant unions do not necessarily make the political choices that we wish they would make, especially when a broader movement vision conflicts with what they perceive to be their member’s immediate interests. The same could be said of resistance to the Green New Deal in the Building Trades. Blasé assurances that workers will bargain the money spent on healthcare into wages—or that there will be better jobs in a clean energy sector—can sound like castles made of sand for unionists that have had to fight tooth and nail for every scrap from the boss. Union members have been let down before; to earn their trust, the Left needs to offer tangible visions of what bigger demands offer that speak to the real concerns of the union rank-and-file—and real paths to victory.

Culinary 226 is wrong. Universal healthcare is essential; no worker should have to go to war against the boss to ensure they can go to the doctor, and ending worker reliance on employers for a basic necessity of life is a moral imperative. Their decision, regardless of their intentions, does not help the labor movement; an argument can be made that it’s not even in their self-interest. While castigating Culinary 226 might offer an outlet—for many unionists, the fact that Culinary 226 is so admired contributes to the intensity of their frustration—it's counterproductive to solving the underlying issue: what makes unions averse to visions like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, and how can they be convinced it’s worth it?

For the Left, this is a crucial question, and one that needs an answer. In the event that Sanders wins the presidency, any fight for his signature proposals—no matter who controls Congress—will rely on enthusiastic union backing. There is no path to universal healthcare or combatting climate change that doesn’t involve union mobilization and support; convincing unions that it’s worth the fight is bigger than the question of the eventual Democratic nominee. For many, it’s the choice between rationing pills and delaying surgery, or living in dignity; it’s the question of growing old secure in the next generation’s future, or in fear that they’ll inherit a dying planet.

Unions are wrong when they oppose ideas whose time has come. But they’re also essential to making those ideas real. The stakes are too big: the Left has to convince them that when we present visions of the future, that future is theirs.

C.M. Lewis is an editor of Strikewave and a union activist in Pennsylvania.