COMMENTS: 19
The House of Labor and the Future
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
On Sunday, leaders of four of the country's largest labor unions announced they would boycott this week's AFL-CIO convention, and officials from two of those unions, SEIU and the Teamsters, withdrew from the Federation on Monday.
The five unions now comprising the Change To Win Coalition (CTWC) -- along with SEIU, the Teamsters, United Food and Commercial Workers, Laborers, and UNITE HERE -- have formed what amounts to a rival federation -- whether they all formally leave the AFL-CIO or not, which now seems likely. These unions' collective 5 million membership represents 40 percent of the AFL-CIO's 13 million total. If the mammoth 2.7 million member National Education Association aligns with the effort, CTWC will hold exactly half of all union members in the United States.
The break is the biggest rift in labor since the 1930s, when the CIO split off from the AFL.
The avowed basis of the break is a fundamental disagreement on strategy, often depicted as a choice by the insurgents of organizing over politics. This is misleading. Many of the unions remaining in the federation are every bit as committed as the CTWC group to organizing new union members. And some CTWC unions, particularly SEIU, are keenly aware of the importance of politics in increasing union membership. The fight is really about consolidation and political focus. SEIU has argued that the current practice of having several unions competing in single industrial sectors -- "15 separate organizations in transportation, 15 in construction, 13 in public employment, nine in manufacturing, and so on" -- defeats the scaled effort needed to take on business in today's climate. It wants to compel fewer, bigger, more clearly sectorally-based unions, as in northern Europe. And it has argued that labor must find ways to mobilize support outside itself, chiefly through more engagement in state and local politics.
It is hard to argue with any of these claims, though whether CTWC can realize its promise is an open question. Even unions without competition in their declared industries are showing declines in density, as indeed are the new Coalition's own members. And outside SEIU itself, and UNITE HERE in a few cities, few of CTWC's members show much commitment to the community links and coalition work needed to gain greater influence over state and local politics. In all the shifting of positions over the past seven months, as this "coalition of the willing" has been constructed, the present result sometimes seems less the principled conclusion to a principled debate than the final triumph of testosterone over inertia. The latter is largely produced by the fragmented governing structure of the AFL-CIO, which makes it very difficult to undertake bold initiatives.
But so be it. Labor is now split more or less in half. We can look forward to a long and ugly period of dissension in America's most important single progressive movement, facing a ruthless anti-worker Administration intent on its complete destruction.
I don't think this split was necessary, and still think it would have been best for the state of progressive politics if both sides could have worked out a deal on federation reform and leadership transition. (Why didn't the insurgents run a candidate to contest John Sweeney? Why didn't they try to move an agenda from within?)
But I also recognize that in the areas of greatest need for labor -- organizing, and political engagement and programs in the states and cities -- more effective work needs to be done.
So, while I believe that solidarity in the face of an onslaught is preferable, I respect those who argue that standing together may not make sense if they aren't standing in the right place. And I appreciate the difficulty of changing a troubled organization from within. So I wish the insurgents luck. This country desperately needs a labor movement that is again "the collection of many that speaks for all," that can provide an organized and intelligent moral center to a majoritarian progressive politics -- the folks who brought you the weekend, the eight-hour day, and so much else that makes this country (almost) civilized. I just wish we weren't starting this way in reclaiming that.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bookwoman on Jul 26, 2005 5:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When a group of workers at one of the Walmarts in Colorado tried to organize and were put down by the company, they backed away. Their remarks, after the confrontation, was that, if they had lost their jobs, they didn't think the union would have come to their aid.
The fear of the Democratic Party that they will get less money from the unions may be a moot point since the Republicans are working hard to make those big contributions illegal.
Perhaps all the complaining and attacks from the leaders of the AFL-CIO are more because they spend more time protecting their own positions than do protecting their worker-members.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sbartram on Jul 26, 2005 6:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also observed the behavior and lack of political sophistication on the part of SEUI President Andrew Stern during the Howard Dean campaign, when he endorsed Dean and then, based on tv news reports, withdrew his support and called Dean "nuts" over the so called scream. This is not the person to lead labor.
An overwhelming reason union membership is down is that the law and the current administration is anti-labor, regardless of the UN Democracy Fund. This has been the policy of NAFTA democrats (DLC) and Rebublicans, especially since Regan.
Labor needs to either loose Andrew Stern and/or find a George Mitchell to negotiate a reconcilliation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Citizen
Posted by: Kaput
» RE: Citizen
Posted by: gypsy55
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gramps on Jul 26, 2005 7:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sweeny has pissed away millions in union dues in order to compete with the corporations in Washington while allowing membership to fall. In spite of rousing speech yesterday he still thinks he can do both.
Successful union leaders have historically become business men instead of union men, and as a result place more faith in negotiation than confrontation. I see the split as a renaissance of the labor movement. Union membership is down and the only way it can regain its former power is to organize.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bert Thomas on Jul 26, 2005 9:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If this is what it takes to wake the AFLCIO from its long torpor (loudly signaled by shrinking membership and active hostility toward unions by working people), then this is not alarming at all. This is exciting. Suddenly, the Labor Movement is the place to be. The old folks in suits (God bless 'em all) are being nudged out of the way so that hotter blood (yeah, and testosterone, too) may provide the thrilling leadership that gave rise to labor activism in the first place.
As a member of a small (17,000 members) independent union of University of California clerical workers--CUE (Coalition of University Employees)--I am cheered and cheering the audacity of Andy Stern and SEIU. I applaud their courage and most of all, their example. Well-meaning folks may prate on about "education" and all, but without fire-breathing LEADERSHIP, nobody cares to learn anything anyway.
This may change all that. Forget "solidarity"...nowadays, it sounds so "russian." How about UNITY? I like that! New leadership in a more activist direction appeals to this old fart.
Si, se puede!
In UNITY,
--BT
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Jul 26, 2005 9:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not as if she doesn't have a right to her opinion. In fact I agree with her 99.9% on the issues. It is, however, the fact that as a scion of priviledge she feels it incumbent upon herself of to prescribe the pill to heal what ails the union movement.
Naively she wonders why the Andrew Stern-led dissidents didn't mount an opposition slate, failing to recognized that John Sweeney's re-election was a foregone conclusion.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Advice to the unwashed from the never sweated.
Posted by: tobykreidler
» I don't believe I mentioned anything about "democracy"
Posted by: sausage
» RE: I don't believe I mentioned anything about "democracy"
Posted by: tobykreidler
» The Vanguard Classes are Effete Asses
Posted by: AdamSelene40
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WitchyNy on Jul 26, 2005 10:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My Grandfather never took much pride in the 'modern' unions. He considered them a bad compromise to the goals of the early days.
My father would take me to union meetings and I would listen to them say such things as the Environment did not matter and we must win the current war (Vietnam, Gulf..and so on...) even if it mean voting for the Republicans.
It is time for this. We progressives have nothing to lose.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lindalee on Jul 26, 2005 11:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 26, 2005 12:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why don't the unions -- Actually there are reasons
Posted by: AdamSelene40
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kommishoner on Jul 26, 2005 2:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even if Stern and the new coalition seem to be blowhards, I think some kind of reform was really needed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: re: why don't the unions
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sourpuss on Jul 26, 2005 5:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fjames on Jul 26, 2005 5:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The far left is moving towards extinction, Call the environmentalists. It must be a ROVE plot.
The ship of fools.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bookwoman on Jul 26, 2005 5:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When a group of workers at one of the Walmarts in Colorado tried to organize and were put down by the company, they backed away. Their remarks, after the confrontation, was that, if they had lost their jobs, they didn't think the union would have come to their aid.
The fear of the Democratic Party that they will get less money from the unions may be a moot point since the Republicans are working hard to make those big contributions illegal.
Perhaps all the complaining and attacks from the leaders of the AFL-CIO are more because they spend more time protecting their own positions than do protecting their worker-members.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sbartram on Jul 26, 2005 6:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also observed the behavior and lack of political sophistication on the part of SEUI President Andrew Stern during the Howard Dean campaign, when he endorsed Dean and then, based on tv news reports, withdrew his support and called Dean "nuts" over the so called scream. This is not the person to lead labor.
An overwhelming reason union membership is down is that the law and the current administration is anti-labor, regardless of the UN Democracy Fund. This has been the policy of NAFTA democrats (DLC) and Rebublicans, especially since Regan.
Labor needs to either loose Andrew Stern and/or find a George Mitchell to negotiate a reconcilliation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Citizen
Posted by: Kaput
» RE: Citizen
Posted by: gypsy55
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gramps on Jul 26, 2005 7:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sweeny has pissed away millions in union dues in order to compete with the corporations in Washington while allowing membership to fall. In spite of rousing speech yesterday he still thinks he can do both.
Successful union leaders have historically become business men instead of union men, and as a result place more faith in negotiation than confrontation. I see the split as a renaissance of the labor movement. Union membership is down and the only way it can regain its former power is to organize.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bert Thomas on Jul 26, 2005 9:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If this is what it takes to wake the AFLCIO from its long torpor (loudly signaled by shrinking membership and active hostility toward unions by working people), then this is not alarming at all. This is exciting. Suddenly, the Labor Movement is the place to be. The old folks in suits (God bless 'em all) are being nudged out of the way so that hotter blood (yeah, and testosterone, too) may provide the thrilling leadership that gave rise to labor activism in the first place.
As a member of a small (17,000 members) independent union of University of California clerical workers--CUE (Coalition of University Employees)--I am cheered and cheering the audacity of Andy Stern and SEIU. I applaud their courage and most of all, their example. Well-meaning folks may prate on about "education" and all, but without fire-breathing LEADERSHIP, nobody cares to learn anything anyway.
This may change all that. Forget "solidarity"...nowadays, it sounds so "russian." How about UNITY? I like that! New leadership in a more activist direction appeals to this old fart.
Si, se puede!
In UNITY,
--BT
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sausage on Jul 26, 2005 9:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not as if she doesn't have a right to her opinion. In fact I agree with her 99.9% on the issues. It is, however, the fact that as a scion of priviledge she feels it incumbent upon herself of to prescribe the pill to heal what ails the union movement.
Naively she wonders why the Andrew Stern-led dissidents didn't mount an opposition slate, failing to recognized that John Sweeney's re-election was a foregone conclusion.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Advice to the unwashed from the never sweated.
Posted by: tobykreidler
» I don't believe I mentioned anything about "democracy"
Posted by: sausage
» RE: I don't believe I mentioned anything about "democracy"
Posted by: tobykreidler
» The Vanguard Classes are Effete Asses
Posted by: AdamSelene40
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WitchyNy on Jul 26, 2005 10:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My Grandfather never took much pride in the 'modern' unions. He considered them a bad compromise to the goals of the early days.
My father would take me to union meetings and I would listen to them say such things as the Environment did not matter and we must win the current war (Vietnam, Gulf..and so on...) even if it mean voting for the Republicans.
It is time for this. We progressives have nothing to lose.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lindalee on Jul 26, 2005 11:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 26, 2005 12:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why don't the unions -- Actually there are reasons
Posted by: AdamSelene40
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kommishoner on Jul 26, 2005 2:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even if Stern and the new coalition seem to be blowhards, I think some kind of reform was really needed.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: re: why don't the unions
Posted by: maxpayne
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sourpuss on Jul 26, 2005 5:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fjames on Jul 26, 2005 5:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The far left is moving towards extinction, Call the environmentalists. It must be a ROVE plot.
The ship of fools.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




