Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

You may think the AFL-CIO split is none of your beeswax, but if you work in this country, you owe labor, big time. And I'm talking to you, white-collar worker.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Solidarity Later?

By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted July 26, 2005.


You may think the AFL-CIO split is none of your beeswax, but if you work in this country, you owe labor, big time. And I'm talking to you, white-collar worker.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Molly Ivins

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Solidarity Forev ... ooops, make that Solidarity Later.

Organized labor is weak, but unorganized labor is a hell of a lot weaker. That's what's splitting the AFL-CIO. You may think this is none of your beeswax, but if you work in this country, you owe labor, big time. And I'm talking to you, white-collar worker.

This is not about the old stuff -- 40-hour workweek, unemployment insurance, health benefits, safety regs, etc. This is about right now, today. The money that controls this administration is out to screw you -- it's your pension on the line, your salary on the line and your job on the line. If your company can replace you cheaper, you are gone, buddy. And this administration is pushing jobs overseas just as fast as it can.

The split is not a case of good guys versus bad guys -- it's good guys versus (we hope) some better guys.

John Sweeney, current head of the AFL-CIO, is not only one of the world's nicest people, he's also pretty damn tough. Sweeney and his team have been fighting like pit bulls, but the deck is increasingly stacked against them. (How's that for mixing metaphors?) Since the Republicans have taken over the executive branch, myriad executive orders, administrative changes and the stacking the National Labor Relations Board have quietly been implemented. The result is that organized labor is now hemorrhaging.

The larger result can be seen in the whole picture of stagnant wages, frozen minimum wage, corporate gains against labor on every front. It won't stop -- the Bush administration is in a fight to the death against labor. They even intervened to block a California law that says employers cannot use taxpayer money to run anti-union campaigns in the workplace. How do you like them apples, middle-class taxpayer?

Two things to remember when discussing union politics -- you can't avoid initials, and these are some tough SOBs.

To oversimplify, Sweeney pretty much bet his wad on the Democrats on the theory that labor will never come back unless it gets a level playing field. Setting aside the spinelessness and incompetence of the Democratic Party (I think Democrats who voted for the bankruptcy bill alone should be run out of the party), it sure looks like a losing strategy. Labor skates with the Change to Win Coalition cite the old definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. To oversimplify again, the CWC wants to move all the artillery over to grass-roots organizing.

It may take some arrogance to think your union would do better outside the AFL-CIO, but the CWC has some record on its side. In this debate, you should know that the word "arrogance" is code for Andy Stern, head of the SEIU, who is one impressive guy and also has the nerve to think he knows how to organize better than the leadership of the AFL-CIO. Stern is leading the walkout faction.

Stern's claim to fame is that SEIU has successfully organized the "unorganizable" -- some of the poorest, most powerless people in our society, the people who push mops, clean toilets and never voted in their lives. Credit is due to a superb new generation of organizers. (Obligatory disclosure: A few years ago, I addressed an SEIU convention, but had them donate my fee to charity. My most vivid memory is how proud they are of their children in military service.)

The CWC wants reorganization. They especially think the smaller unions should be merged because each has its own administrative apparatus. Their payrolls eat up dues that should be going to organizing, as do some useless central labor councils. The CWC unions, freed from AFL dues, can hire more organizers and make more progress.

On the other hand, the AFL has AFSCME (government workers, a fast-growing union) and the Communications Workers -- strong power bases. The AFL claims the CWC unions are committing the unthinkable sin of poaching other unions' workers (very unbrotherly -- in fact, cheating), and it's true. And they are threatening to keep doing it.

The AFL also points out that at least a few of the CWC unions are fairly mobbed up, which has the disadvantage of being probably true, but unprovable.

Unions figured out a long time ago that Republicans are perfectly happy to let the mob issue fester in order to discredit labor -- their despicable efforts to undermine reform in the Teamsters Union will not be forgotten.

Both sides are slugging hard in this fight but are still talking and negotiating, too -- they realize a split can only weaken labor in the short run. This is not so much a left-versus-right fight as it's old strategy versus new -- restructuring labor in ways that make more sense for a de-industrializing economy. Pretty much everyone who supports labor has friends on both sides. I'm supporting Stern and the CWC because the AFL is way too much about protecting turf.

Digg!

Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Come on Molly
Posted by: fjames on Jul 26, 2005 5:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Molly writes:
>The split is not a case of good guys versus bad guys -- it's good guys versus (we hope) some better guys<
Are we talking about union leadership here?
How about crooks vs crooks. Greedy union leadership has pushed their membership to this brink and notihng else. Everyone in the Bush administration are criminals but union leaders are good and better. Once again spoken like a crazed leftist.
You make it too easy for us to win again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Come on Molly Posted by: Jimena
» RE: Come on Molly Posted by: mstew67
» RE: Come on Molly Posted by: mstew67
Have faith people!
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 26, 2005 10:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our American faith affirms the rights of the People.

All have "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (...) whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government(...)." --Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, 1776.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." --Lincoln's First Inaugural, 1861.

Unions are mini-democracies. Even in a democracy, however, there are no guaratees of perfection. The people shall judge. We, the people, are the ultimate authority in a democracy.

Lincoln also said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

That's the faith we live by and it is time's passing that proves the case. Any leader who believes differently is in for a shock.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

tony
Posted by: tocarr on Jul 27, 2005 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with Molly. However we, as union members, do want
even more reform than what is happening now. In our union,
UFCW, here in Northern California it seems that we can only rely on one or two of our union reps to answer our questions,
give us straight facts, or even be available to us. We rely on the Office Manager for almost everything. Rose you are a gem. The leadership and local reps really do make too much money. That is where the baggage is, not in old and new. Just
look at the vote in our latest contract. None of us, locally,
know of anyone that voted "yes" for the offer from the FEC.
We believe that some deal was worked out for benefits other
than for the workers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gramps
Posted by: gramps on Jul 27, 2005 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When John L. Lewis took the mineworkers out of the AFL and founded the CIO in the thirties it gave us a giant industrial union. Whether Sweeny is a nice guy or an asshole is not relevent. He is taking union dues and bribing politicians like the corporations do--money that should be used to organize Walmart and the hundreds of sweatshops that infest our country.
Union leaders have become negotiators again, this is nothing new. You can't negotiate with a corporation unless you have something to negotiate with. It is time to rid ourselves of union men who have become businessmen.
I am surprised and disappointed with Molly Irvin's take on this event.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gramps
Posted by: gramps on Jul 27, 2005 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The remark about unions being "mobbed up" is a charge that has been used by corporation reactionaries for years against unionism. While there is no doubt that the mob has been in the labor business, there is no proof that the two unions that have broken away from a dying organization are crooked. If they organize the unorganized I don't really care.

Anything is better than organized labor being in bed with the fascists that now control our country. When I fought against The Vietnam War in the sixties, it was my buddies in the CIO that tried to kill me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corruption in Unions, Business & Politicians is Equal
Posted by: Crusader Rabbit on Jul 27, 2005 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately wherever money (millions) and power are, there, too, is plenty of corruption.

Business owners, union leadership and politicians have always been corrupt. It is a juggling act at any time to determine which one is worse and try to go with the least.

I have been a member of SEIU and discovered the large local was "in bed" with management. I have had close friends in other unions that were equally bad. My father was a courageous local union leader and was made to suffer for it.

If company owners/employers would be honorable and fair, unions wouldn't need to exist. Because hard and greedy hearts flourish among those who hire others, unions are essential for the daily survival of workers. More now than ever.

I know of lots of companies that forcibly prevent unionizing, including hospitals, to ensure they can treat their employees like slaves. These same companies deliberately expose their employees to toxic substances and often dump toxics, polluting the planet because the legally required remedies decrease thier profits.

Since we accept a wholly corrupt government as OK, why is it any wonder that we have never fought for the integrity of our unions?

Because we each believe we alone and at their mercy AND that we don't really deserve anything better. Perception becomes reality.

MOLLY-- You are one of my greatest heroes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Molly remembers her history
Posted by: danidono on Jul 27, 2005 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Molly keeps her eye on the ball here - the welfare of the people who work for a living. I think we've gotten so accustomed to the benefits that came out of the union period in this country, that nowadays most people simply can't remember what this country was like before working people had a voice. Sure some locals are corrupt - they're made up of people. Get involved and fix it. Unfortunately, the lazy prefer to whine about the corruption in unions, humming the same mindless tune that came out of the Reagan White House, and ignore the reality that this administration would prefer to see every single working person as an at-will employment opportunity for corporations without any commitment to the individual, the country or humanity in general. There is only one other bunch of folks that seem as myopic about what's really happening all around them - the women who simply can't seem to understand that they are hurtling back to a time when their lives revolved around when and if they got pregnant. Both groups somehow believe it can't be that bad, even as the corruption in this administration becomes more and more evident, and as the laws denigrating our quality of life are multiplying like fleas on an injured dog. Workers without unions and women without birth control - stamp "Victim" across your forehead and get in line.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember history, but look at today
Posted by: gpm on Jul 27, 2005 11:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Historically, the labor movement has been the chief motivator for workplace reforms (child labor laws, overtime pay, health & safety, ...), and we owe our thanks to the strikers & organizers who literally put their lives on the line for these things.

The labor movement is different today. It is top-down and political, despite its claims to be driven by its members. (And this goes for at least two of the CWC unions I have personal experience with -- SEIU and HERE.) If you've worked for a union, you've probably seen how much value union leadership places on its' members opinions (very little). The question of how much emphasis to place on strategic organizing instead of catering to the membership's whims is a very difficult one, but we must not romanticize labor by imagining that it is a grassroots uprising of the working poor. It is not. It is a bureaucracy. A bureaucracy that does a lot to help the working class, but a bureaucracy nonetheless. Membership votes are highly scripted so that the only possible choices are a very narrow set of ideas offered by the top brass; proposals from "the floor" are almost unheard of, unless "the floor" has been asked ahead of time (by the top brass, of course) to offer an idea.

I contend that labor is on even shakier ground than statistics indicate (8% of private sector workers are organized). The decision-making process of union leadership leads to very shallow, even non-existent, support. We need a labor movement, but the state it's in now is not worth preserving.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

labor organizing is the only option we have...
Posted by: timg98376 on Jul 27, 2005 12:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...to make our lifes better. Sure there are many corrupt union officials, they may not be mobbed up but "business unionism" is a corruption of the labor movement.

But what are our options, rely on the generosity of corporate america? All of the benefits enjoyed by working people today are the direct result of hard fought labor struggles, does anyone really believe that big business does not hate the 8 hour, much less medical, social benefits or the minimum wage.

AFL-CIO business unionism and the corporate shills in the democratic party sold out working people long ago. The only way we can defend our current standard of living is to build the real labor movement, the idea of actually improving our lives in any real way is not even an agenda item at this point.

The Bush administration and the well organized rightwing movement they represent, along with the toadies of the democratic party (past and present), directly threaten not only our standard of living but our very lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unions
Posted by: nakis on Jul 27, 2005 12:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another nice article Molly. I can't say I agree with everything you say but you pick good topics and make some good statements.

I consider unions a necessary evil. Not that unions are bad but that anything that creates such power and collects such wealthy creates opportunity for abuse.

I am fortunate. I belong to a union. I make decent money that I know I would not make anywhere near this much without that union. And though I don't see why my dues have to be so high I do thank God for my union. And with much credit to the membership we voted out some poor administrators and elected in some really good ones.

And I thank GOD not often enough for all those millions of union members that took beatings, that lost jobs, that spent so much of their lives to make our nation a better nation where people can earn a better wage. And I especially thank God for those people who lost their lives to help make America better for the common man. Sure there is corruption in unions. But without those unions I don't even want to think about where we would be. If you think corporate abuse, theft, corruption in government is bad now, without unions it would be unthinkable or the early part of the 20th century. Working dawn to dusk, often seven days a week with no hope for retirement. Living in company owned hovels. Shopping in company owned stores.
It would be like living in third world countries whose governments are supported by the US wealthy.

I'm glad there is a shake up in the union world. Compliance to the corrupt processes only hurts unions. It was the power of the organizations that made change. The voices and actions of the many demanding fair wages that made change.

The current administration is using the power of the government to beat down wages and the people and then lie to us about it. Shortly after Bush took office his administration had the labor department issue a booklet to every business on record on how they can use the current laws to their best advantage to give their workers the least they could legally.
Bush and co never were and never will be for the common man. The lie to you about it and then take us for every penny they can get. Bush is on record for wanting to get rid of Social Security. And is attempting that right now. He is also on record for calling the wealthy elite his base.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unions
Posted by: nakis on Jul 27, 2005 12:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you think you don't need unions, your dead wrong. Unions set the standard for all pay scales. When unions loose out, everyone looses out. Sure it would be great to not have to need unions. They are a double edged sword but unless you can count on employers to pay decent wages and have a federal social net that covers what we require benefits for then you need unions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whatever decision comes down....
Posted by: Asses of Evil on Jul 27, 2005 6:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is hopefully quick and not too messy. Bush has tried, as Molly said, to destroy labor and has done a decent job, so the last thing we need is cannibalization. I'm personally skeptical of the leaders of both groups and hope that they don't consider this a high-stakes game of chicken. Too much is at stake. The sooner both groups can remember their shared interests, the better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get with it, buddy
Posted by: CrackWilding on Jul 27, 2005 7:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we talking about union leadership here?
How about crooks vs crooks. Greedy union leadership has pushed their membership to this brink and notihng else. Everyone in the Bush administration are criminals but union leaders are good and better. Once again spoken like a crazed leftist.


Did no one tell you? Jimmy Hoffa disappeared thirty years ago.

You're like the old Japanese soldier that didn't know the war was over until 1975. Times have changed, guy, and the old stereotypes haven't been accurate in quite some while.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Organize Tech Workers!
Posted by: beffie on Jul 27, 2005 7:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I welcome the split. If the splinter union wants to focus on organizing, I want them to look at the "blue collar" workers of the computer industry - the lowly tech support worker. I was one of those poor souls for a few years. I worked for a company that will remain nameless...Okay, let's say their name rhymed with Schmell. They stepped all over us. While you get a comfy chair and a small cubicle, the stress you are under is very intense. I was a full time employee and I did receive good benefits. That's a rare thing these days.

A lot of the workers that are still located in the states are temps or underpaid workers in what are called "low cost models." A low cost model is when a company like Schmell decides to open a call center in a city that has recently lost its single biggest employer, like a Fruit of the Loom factory. They can hire people at 9 bucks an hour (a steal) and give them shitty benefits. While they may be permanent employees, therefore Schmell escapes the stigma of pulling a Microsoft with 50% of its labor force temps or going overseas (which has proven to be not that cost effective), they are separated from the rest of the corporate community. Low cost models are located in another part of the country and it is very easy for the workers to become marginalized. They rarely have contact with upper management. There is no ladder up to bigger and better things, other than low-low end quasi-management positions, like “team leaders,” which are few and far between.

Temps have it even worse because the temp agency usually doesn't offer much in terms of benefits and you can be fired at any time. Sometimes, temping is the only way in the door to a permanent tech job because the client company only hires temp-to-perm workers. Spherion offered me insurance, that was something like a $200/month deduction AFTER taxes.

I'd like to see something like a United Tech Workers Guild. While tech workers are probably not as exploited as someone at Walmart, there's no reason why they shouldn't organize and fight for fair wages and benefits for both temp and permanent workers. Seeing that the low cost model and hiring large groups of temps is the way companies do business these days, I say it's time.

A friend of mine said that unionizing poisons the work environment. Sorry, it's already been poisoned by management.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unconvincing egalitarian lament...
Posted by: MichaelL on Jul 28, 2005 5:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unions are dead and stinking. Why? It isn't because of corrupt leadership or the big, bad corporate wolf blowing their straw house down. It's because unions have been completely obsolete since mass industrialization ended decades ago. By the way, unions had absolutely nothing to do with the forty hour work week being implemented. Instead of just picking up a book once in a while, you ought to actually read one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A little levity
Posted by: LeonDion on Jul 29, 2005 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Molly wrote:

"Sweeney and his team have been fighting like pit bulls, but the deck is increasingly stacked against them. (How's that for mixing metaphors?)"

Makes perfect sense to me!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Greed or less greed?
Posted by: BabsnSF on Jul 30, 2005 1:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was at the AFL CIO convention. I saw first hand what happened and felt the anguish in the room. While I respect Molly and love her writings, I wonder how long it has been since she made less than $100,000, or even less than the median American at $45,000.

What I saw and felt in that room last week was frustration.

You have the 2 unions who walked because they couldn't get a majority vote in the room. They wanted Sweeney to step down but they had no candidate to run against him. Both Stern and Hoffa could have run, but that would have meant a cut in pay for both of them, as well as continued financial liability to the AFL CIO. This way, they get to keep their fat pay checks AND their organizations can walk away from a 9 million dollar debt to the AFL CIO.

Convenient. And grossly underreported by anyone.

While I am a proponent of change, I don't believe one can change from the outside. I think taking their marbles and going home is cowardly and destructive. It hurts only the central labor bodies and the state feds... not the guys on top.

What does that sound like? Oh wait...I remember.... corporate America.

Shame on Andy and James .... they're spoiled little boys and are hurting the very movement they proclaim to love.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gramps
Posted by: gramps on Jul 30, 2005 10:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The split off has already got Sweeny spending dues money on organizing the unorganized. The split might just be the best thing that could have happened to the AFL-CIO. Maybe now they will spend their political money on Ralph Nader and other people who will not accept corporation money. "Fascism is the marriage of corporation power and the state". Benito Mussolini. The Republicans get 95%of their money from the corporations and the Democrats 75%. Ted Kennedy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: gramps Posted by: BabsnSF
trade vs industrial
Posted by: karyse on Jul 31, 2005 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To the guy who said we "ought to read a book." Perhaps YOU ought to read a book, any book, after you tell me which book you were reading and who you think is responsible for the 40 hour work week.

Unions can rightfully take credit for the 40 hour week, the eight hour day, overtime pay, workman's compensation, safety regulation in the workplace, the right to organize, pensions, medical care, child labor law, seniority structures, paid vacation, the right to refuse overtime, paid holidays, the right to strike, and even job security after illness or pregnancy.

All of these things are at risk and some of them are near being eliminated -- the only way to retain these things is union labor. And don't give me that crap about how YOU are not in a union but you have these things -- the only reason you do is because the company you work for fears the union.

And by the way, a trade union organizes a particular trade (electricians, plumbers, welders, light bulb changers, etc.) and an industrial union organizes by industry (auto workers, miners, clothing, etc.).

The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW, or Wobblies) had, and still have, only one criteria to become a member -- if you work for an hourly wage no matter where you live in the world, you can be a Wobbly, regardless of the industry, or the trade you labor within.

The problem with trade-labor unions is that they tend to not give a crap about anyone who isn't an electrician, plumber, controller, etc. The problem with Industrial unions is they tend not to give a crap about anyone outside their own industry (though industrial unions are better about it then trade unions).

Until we all recognize (again) that without unions workers are completely at the mercy of the bosses, and that each of us has more in common with the exploited workers in China, Indonesia, India, Argentina, and [insert country of choice here], than we have in common with (sorry Molly) Molly Ivans, we are doomed to be just replaceable parts in the machine.

Solidarity Forever -- IWW. Oh and by the way, I'm currently in a "right to work" state and so could not find a union to be in even if I weren't unemployed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Smaller May Be Better
Posted by: Sparks56 on Jul 31, 2005 2:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a retired member of SETC, State Employee Trades Council, representing trades workers employed by the State of California, mostly in the Cal. State Univ. System. (We have been a royal pain to Gov. Arnie, I'm proud to say.) Until three years ago, we were affiliated with the AFL/CIO through our membership in the Laborers' International Union. When the International fired our Sacramento lobbyist, and then refused to lower our $50,000-a-year contribution, we had enough. We bolted and formed our own union. We did it in secret. When the International found out about it, after the fact, they sued to get us, (and our $50 grand a year) back. They lost.
Now there is a union that uses all of its resources for the members. In all the years I paid dues, much of which went to the International and the AFL/CIO, I never met a representative from either organization. They never got involved in contract negotiations, we did that ourselves. The same with grievances. The same with political work, on both the state and federal level. The fact that we pulled off a maneuver like forming our own union without their knowing indicates how out of touch they were with our day-to-day lives.
That's my point. Bigger may not be better, in fact, it may be worse. The leadership of smaller organizations are closer to the people they serve, whether it be the AFL/CIO or General Motors.
Workers cannot stand alone and prosper. But we cannot prosper when the leadership of Unions, who wear $2000 suits and sport $120 haircuts, sit back at the country club while the quality of the lives of the people who pay them steadily deteriorates.
If the AFL/CIO is no longer relevent, and it hasn't been the last few years, it doesn't deserve to exist, and it won't exist. It will be replaced by smaller, more democratic unions focused on organizing, organizing, organizing!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What Labor Split? You Mean It Was "IN THE NEWS"?
Posted by: va_wfp on Aug 6, 2005 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I work for one of the big unions doing the split - and I'm amazed at how much this is NOT being talked about, except by a few great journalists like Molly, and by labor insiders and the National Right to Work folks.

Reality is folks - a lot of folks don't know the AFL-CIO exists, much less that it's splitting. My union employer has paid millions each year to the AFL-CIO, and it's rare that any help if at all came to us - and this was before the rumblings about a split.

Essentially, the AFL-CIO exists as a very expensive ineffectual PR organization for the union movement. They don't do most of what they is their purpose - coordinating organizing campaigns b/w unions, helping with basic strategy, etc. There are no real new ideas coming from the AFL-CIO, and there haven't been for a while.

Betting the farm on the 2004 election wasn't smart - but funding grass roots door to door canvassing was smart. It's less expensive, gets the union movement less bitching from the right about soft money (never mind the hypocrisy when the Right outspends labor 8 to 1); and it gets people to vote for your guy the one way that really works - getting somebody to a regular guy/gals' front door and shows that somebody actually cares about their vote.

Andy Stern, Hoffa Jr. et al understand a key lesson - that maybe the only way to rescue America from the anti-labor Fourth Reich is to organize all over the US - not just the states that already have friendly labor laws - so they must include the south and southwest.

Andy Stern and the Change to Win are not labor traitors; far from it, they are labor rescuers.

Pardon me for being an unapologetic supporter - but I thought you might want to hear from somebody on the inside.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]