Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Out With the Old, In With the New

By Stephen Pizzo, News for Real. Posted July 27, 2005.


The old AFL-CIO guard wasted millions of dollars in union dues trying to buy political friends, instead of actually organizing. If Democrats know what's good for them, they will side with 'New Labor.'
Advertisement

I hope folks over at the DNC are paying close attention to what's going on in Chicago this week.

CHICAGO, July 25 - The huge split in organized labor has been fueled by stagnant living standards for many workers, by the ascendancy of the service sector and by labor's lack of success in politics and unionizing workers. But as much as anything, the schism reflects the conflicting ambitions of two titans of labor, John J. Sweeney, the president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., and his onetime protege, Andrew L. Stern, the president of the Service Employees International Union, until now the largest union in the labor federation. (Full Story)

What's going on there is so important, it may well decide who will sit in the White House three and half years from now -- as well as the future of the Democratic Party itself.

I am not going to waste your time chronicling the failures of the AFL-CIO or its well-stuffed, overpaid, private jet- traveling, five-star restaurant-dining, limo-riding, security-guard-surrounded, manicured, Italian-suited, underperforming, money-hander-outer-to-politicians, leader John Sweeney.

Suffice it to say that this divorce was long overdue. The reason for it is about as fundamental as it gets in labor terms. The old, comfortable guard at the AFL-CIO has wasted hundreds of millions of dollars in union dues trying to buy political friends instead of doing the hard work of labor organizing.

In the old days -- when labor was young — there was no money. Instead, labor used its muscle to get attention and cooperation. Okay, it wasn't always pretty, and it was really hard work. It required union leaders to engage in one-on-one retail organizing. It meant handing out union fliers at factory gates in the wee hours of the morning, sometimes in freezing weather.

Back in those days union leaders, like Samuel Gompers, John L. Lewis, Harry Bridges and Cesar Chavez, put their personal safety, freedom and lives on the line facing down pipe- swinging company thugs on picket lines.

It was hard, uphill work back when Labor was young. But with the winds of righteousness at their backs, it was effective too. American workers organized in record numbers, salaries went up, benefits went up, standards of living went up.

All those better-paid workers spent more, creating demand for more worker-produced products and services thereby creating more well-paying jobs. It was a self-fueling continuum that built the most prosperous, healthy and secure working class in history. Oh, and a robust national economy as well.

Corporate America could have just left that golden-egg-laying goose alone and let the good times roll. But they couldn't resist. They had to kill the goose in a short-sighted quest for instant gratification. Poorly treated and housed cheap offshore labor became the corporate Holy Grail of profitability. Millions of jobs were sent to developing countries, pensions were cut, healthcare benefits were slashed or eliminated, blah, blah, blah,you know all this.

As this rape of labor marched on and on — and continues to do so — what did the AFL-CIO do? Nada. Nothing. Zip. At least, they did nothing effective. Because Sweeney and his kind at the top of labor had become indistinguishable from corporate CEOs and politicians. They looked the same. They lived the same. They vacationed the same. They talked the same. They walked the same.


Digg!

Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including "Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans," which was nominated for a Pulitzer.

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

Advertisement
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:
toward a coalition of coalitions
Posted by: Meremark on Jul 27, 2005 2:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More forward movment could be setting out a 'next political party,' ahead of both Democrats and union groups, and others, and let them catch up to it. Next, the Democracy Party, say, and those who want to put a new party label over their same causes could help move in a Majority.

It's not joining a new party. It's more like getting new letterhead and company name for where you already are.

So a 'next party' test run, to establish bona fides, is in the elections of '06. Run it off a website, get a candidate in each congressional districts -- a slate of 435 -- elect them all and remove the U.S. House entirely, in one fell swoop. Elect 435 replacements, in '06. Change the Congress.

With internet-new campaign organizing. This is Newt's Contract-with-America tactic, updated. His slate of 70 got 40 elected. Let 435 get 300 elected. Maybe be stealth elected if nobody tells the media. Use some reverse psychology -- pretend voters are sneaking around to quietly elect a new Congress. Shhhhh -- don't tell the media: Change Congress '06.

Candidates in each district sign a promise pledge to represent the Movement. Everyone signs the Contract With Democracy.

Here's that Contract: IMPEACH. One word. Just promise, if elected, to IMPEACH. Impeach is the only position that all the issue groups and coalitions can agree on. It is what Democracy stands for -- that the people have government power. It is still legal to elect Congress. And, come on, are the ones in office now really the best talent we know for the job?

It's daring. It's bold. It's break-the-mold. Instead of trying to re-establish a re-definition of Democrat, just create the definition with a new label. Everybody moving to a new label, would blur the old squabbles.

Anyone who votes to IMPEACH first, and later take up an individual (or coalition) issue -- talk up an Impeach Movement. Democrat, union group, health helpers, educators, homemakers -- be what your are and slap on an Impeach Party label.

Besides, a dedicated House Majority could double Impeach, which makes their or our Speaker the new president.

A Contract With Democracy might elect a new president in '06.

IMPEACH is the ERASER on the Ballot Pencil.

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

Bartram
Posted by: sbartram on Jul 27, 2005 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SEIU President Stern is politically unsophisticated and seems to draw his opinions from network news. We can only hope that Hoffa is a little more sophisticated. It takes a labor friendly congress and labor friendly laws to organize. The steep decline in union membership and power developed after PATCO vs Regan. (There are other reasons obviously, but I'm not writing a book, yet).

Can you explain what kind of organizing effort would have benefited union members in Indiana and Kentucky. They were organized and now they are not, because of a political action.

While the Dermocrats (DLC) and NAFTAlike treaties have not helped. Stern would have served his membership better by staying with the AFL-CIO and accepting the offered compromises and organizing programs.

Right NOW, before this gets any further, labor needs a George Mitchell to negotiate and settle this problem. The stakes are HUGE for unions, progressive politics and democracy. Sweeney, Stern and Hoffa, ARE YOU LISTENING??

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

» RE: Bartram Posted by: maxpayne
this is too much
Posted by: lindalee on Jul 27, 2005 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a drastic and overblown. SEIU is making huge mistakes in my state and have done nothing to organize their members - or keep them. They are losing thousands of members and are not fighting to keep them. This is not good organizing.

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

gramps
Posted by: gramps on Jul 27, 2005 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When John L Lewis took his mineworkers out of the AFL and started the CIO it did not hurt labor. It gave birth to industrial organization. The present AFL-CIO has fallen victim to the same disease that the old AFL had. It is run by pie-cards, (union men who have become businessmen).

I strongly support the unions who are sick of joining the corporations to bribe politicians with money that should go to organizing the unorganized.

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

» RE: gramps Posted by: Suzy
Wow
Posted by: RMS54 on Jul 27, 2005 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At what point are we going to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and realize that just because Stern screams "It's new" that we won't immediately scream "That means it's better!" back?

CtW, while ambitious, hasn't stopped SEIU from raiding in CA (and that's just beginning this week) and it encourages further raiding because now they don't have to deal with AFL-CIO conflict resolution (filing of Article 21 procedures, etc.).

Why give people carte blanche to destroy what little solidarity the movement has left just because you think you know EXACTLY what's best for people? It seems like we're now under some kind of new age "White Man's Burden" or "Manifest Destiny" where SEIU and the rest of CtW know what's good for us little children of union membership.

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

OH
Posted by: RMS54 on Jul 27, 2005 8:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And SEIU supported Republicans as well. So at what point are we talking about someone selling out?

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

BALS
Posted by: BALS on Jul 27, 2005 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ORGANIZING????? JUST WHO IN THE HELL IS GOING TO BE ORGANIZED? THE CHANGE IN NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN UNIONS IS A RESULT OF NOT ONLY ECONOMIC CHANGES, BUT CULTURAL CHANGES TOO. PRIVATE SECTOR UNIONS HAVE DECLINED BECAUSE CORPORATIONS HAVE NO LOYALTY TO OUR NATION OR COMMUNITES WHERE THEY WERE ONCE LOCATED AND THERE ISN'T MUCH ORGANIZING LEFT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR.

MANY WORKERS FEEL NO RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TOP DOGS IN UNIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE AS REMOVED FROM THEIR RANK AND FILE AS CEO'S ARE FROM THEIR WORKERS. AND MANY UNION LEADERS BARGAINED AWAY INDUSTRIAL JOBS TWENTY OR THIRTY YEARS AGO.

THIS SPLIT IN THE AFL-CIO IS AS MUCH ABOUT EGOS AS IT IS STRATEGY AND NO DOUBT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY SUFFERS BECAUSE OF IT.

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

Where's the product?
Posted by: FrankCorey on Jul 27, 2005 9:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unions are businesses—partnerships to sell services. Each union is a separate business; the AFL-CIO is a trade association. A business does not have to belong to a trade association to be a business. A trade associations can be beneficial, useless, or a negative; but in the end it is the individual business that makes it or does not make it. No union has articulated a product for a market economy that addresses current realities and is viable for workers, American businesses, and the country.

By their performance union leaders demonstrate they do not understand these essentials:
· They are businesses and what that entails and not a legal service,
· The working definition of unions that was created beginning in the thirties,
· That unions posited an economic system that worked, and that has to be continually said,
· That business elites subsequently posited lunacy for a economic system, so today the country is an economic basket case, and that has to be continually pointed out,
· That unions have taken care of the interests of the country, and business elites have subverted the country’s interests (Today unions have a standing in the country they never before had),
· That jobs and profitable on-shore companies go together in the minds of Americans; it is not the American worker only,
· That if you want to have market share, you have to have a product that can address current realities and is viable for workers, companies, and the country; and this new beneficial product replaces the existing defective product. A viable product is not part of their thinking.

Unions are businesses that do not require huge capitol outlays. Because of the stupidity of the leadership, unions today possess the essentials but don’t have a product. What is needed could also be delivered by for-profit service businesses. There is a dynamic today that never existed before as to economic and world conditions. A for-profit service business that would articulate a viable product based on the essentials would not be adversarial to American companies but would be a strategic partner. A for-profit service business could readily deliver a product needed by American companies, workers, and the country. There is a huge need and a huge void. Copyright © 2005 Frank Corey

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

Pizzo, the wrong frame and a superficial understanding
Posted by: Christine G on Jul 27, 2005 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pizzo in his recent column about the schism in the AFC-CIO displays a superficial understanding of the realities of union organizing and the politics of the current fight in the AFL. Its not about fat cats--to the extent they exist, they are in unions on both sides of this schism. And contributing to political parties and seeing the importance of a favorable political/policy climate is not a sell-out, it is a key reality of organizing and something that John L. Lewis, in particular, understood as an important component in the "tool kit" of organizers.

The issues that both sides (to think the best of everyone involved) are grappling with (organizing in sectors, companies and regions of the country were union organizing has never been easy, organizing under the most hostile pubic policies since prior to WW II, and facing an increasing individualized and compartimentalize American culture)are very difficult and not easily solved. And sadly, as was mentioned by a previous writer a couple of days ago, it is the worst of ego and male competiveness that has backed this "debate" into such a corner were this split has been the result. Hopefully, even with all the negatives, the result will be more organizing and political strategizing (and yes that means backing pro-labor candidates with $ and workers) and not raiding and cronyism. And hopefully more informed and deeply researched journalistic coverage. And by the way, where has the coverage been of union organizing and the difficults of lives of unprotected workers--only when fits into a PR frame that beltway-focused journalists can grasp do we see labor coverage other than the back pages of the business section.

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

New beginning or beginning of the end.
Posted by: outsidea on Jul 27, 2005 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not sure if that is the right way to go...walking out of the AFL/CIO, but I am certain that more of the same ol same ol does not and will not cut it. Labor has to expand its base and that means militant in your face organizing. The union leaders, the staff AND THE MEMBERS THEMSELVES must take the responsibility to reverse the trend and build labors strength. And I am talking about taking the risk...risking everything in this fight...court injunctions? Screw that! We fight, take our fancy union offices, fine us? So what! It is time to fight....to dare to struggle and dare to win!

Another thing of importance is that when labor biuilds coalitions of solidarity with coummunity groups and NGOs they must stand by their commitments! For example many union orgaznizations, especially invironmental ones, stood with labor against NAFTA and later (as witness the massive massive demonstrations in Seattle) the WTO's ignoring labor and environmental regulations. When the question for driling in ANWAR came up what did labor do? Why the teamsters, building and trades and the laboreres all supported it because of the jobs issue! Stupid and frankly they were traitors. No more of that stff.

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

Democratization and Information War
Posted by: fairleft on Jul 27, 2005 10:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The internal problems of unions have nothing to do with the ego and power issues that caused the break up. What a dark cloud that is.

Unions are now in a profoundly anti-union legal environment which virtually assures their continued decline. The legal environment is produced by the polticians in D.C. Unions _must_ win friends there, there's no way of getting around that. But obviously there's been a failure in strategy: the direct approach (providing people and money) to favored politicians doesn't work anymore, cuz the bad guys have way too much money. So that's the first big real issue: this needs to be recognized and some kind of alternative tried out. I suggest adding Union News to the Fox News and so on mass media. Our reality is massacred or ignored relentlessly on the mass media, and we do not offer an alternative.

The other very long-standing and huge issue is democracy from the bottom up. As long as there is a dictatorship of the center, the morale and belief in unionization at every local suffers. The ground-floor locals tend to be more radical and and innovative and that's also the point: the central leadership must be more democratic in part because that will make them more radical and innovative. Right now they ain't inspiring anyone.

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

MAYBE IT'S CAPITALISM THAT NEEDS A REMODEL
Posted by: becky141 on Jul 27, 2005 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody who is paying attention knows that corporate cronyism and "Trickle-Down Reagonomics" as updated by the Bush Neo-cons is a fatally flawed model. To expect these CEO's to care or respond to labor's needs is to beg the question. What is needed is a NEW MODEL FOR WORK AND A SYSTEMIC REFORM BASED ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON, AND NOT FOR THE ELITE FEW.

I am NOT talking about Socialism, Communism, or any other ism that has been debated and found wanting. Anytime you have top-down organizations in charge, the workers and the people lose.

Why not break things down into their simpler parts and take back our own lives? What is the purpose of work? Why are we willing to sell our souls to work 50+ hours a week just to pay the bank for a huge mortgage, the credit company for the use of an over-priced car to take us to work, and maybe have a little left over for small indulgences that make us feel a little like we're living?

Why work until April for a private, for-profit corporation called the IRS who pays out 40% of what it collects to another for profit, private company called the Federal Reserve? The 300 private shareholders of the FED collect "interest" on the National Debt that their corporation created for the express purpose of keeping themselves in excess luxury and the rest of us in eternal servitude. (the other 60%? Perpetual war - for whose benefit??? Anybody seen any Haliburton statistics lately?)

Until labor, and we, the people, get educated to the "real deal" here, no amount of trying to reform Wal-Mart and organize just to survive will suffice. There's a whole lot more of us than there are the few at the top. When will we wake up and reclaim our birthright??? Seems to me it has to start by redefining work and the purpose of our "lives of quiet desperation."

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

Naive`
Posted by: bornxeyed on Jul 27, 2005 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pardon my lack of understanding, but just who is left in this country to be unionized?

I know I live in a "right to work" state so there is little incentive to form unions here and with many state's economies dominated by Walmart and its ilk, what labor pool exists that could swell the ranks of unions?

The only unionized people I've come in contact with have mainly been municipal, state and federal employees. The last private sector union job I had was in a specialized manufacturing company 16 years ago. In fact, that was the only unionized private sector job I've had and the union couldn't keep at least 50 jobs/month from disappearing in the 6 months I was there.

So where is this ununionized labor pool that is ripe for union outreach. Just wear an AFL-CIO baseball cap to your Walmart Associate - how lower management sounding is that!? - part-time no benefit job and see how fast you're a former Walmart Associate.

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

dems don't have to BACK either, they....
Posted by: lori on Jul 27, 2005 4:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
need to do what they have been neglecting for decades, and let labor do what its gonna do. The dems need to open their mouths and talk about workers issues, the crushing labor law--business law really--all the issues we know in the workplace, from shifting health care to workers, to firing workers for union activity, to health and safety issues, to ridding workers of pensions and retirement security. If the dems would do their job, they won't have to worry about "which" labor group to back, they'll get money from both, all, every...

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

Same old, or a new new?
Posted by: AG on Jul 28, 2005 12:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That was a refreshing look at labor management -- that bloated, full of itself organization. Unfortunately, it was at least 30 years too late. The union leadership, along with the democrat and the republican party leadership follow one thing-- the money.

When you follow money, you put aside issues of peace, justice, truth, and a compassionate and caring society.

If this last election hasn't made us realize that neither the democratic party, nor Union Leadership, offers a path different than the republicans, then we will continue to be stuck in the endless downward loop.

We need at least some represention by our peers. I don't need a millionaire to tell me whats wrong. I know whats wrong. It's that our leaders are leading us astray as they line their own pockets, and we are all blindly following.

peace and justice
AG

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