Democratic leaders at the AFL-CIO conference
Web Only// Features » July 24, 2005
Labor Split a Mixed Bag
Union threats to leave AFL-CIO generate waves, new possibilities
In the run-up to the AFL-CIO convention starting on July 25, observers have been avidly speculating about whether the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) or other unions in the Change to Win coalition challenging AFL-CIO President John Sweeney will leave the federation.
And if they do, what will that mean for the labor movement?
SEIU President Andy Stern has long talked of building “something stronger” than the AFL-CIO and he seems the most anxious of the dissidents to leave. The Laborers, another union in the coalition, have made it clear they plan to stay in. The executive boards of the remainder–UFCW (food and commercial workers), UNITE HERE (textile and hotel workers) and, just this week, the Teamsters–have voted to give their presidents the right to withdraw.
Many Teamsters, who have long been outside the AFL-CIO after their expulsion for ethical violations, have little love for the AFL-CIO in any case. But the smallest union, with ownership of a bank that relies heavily on union deposits and business, UNITE HERE has reasons to stay in. Still, both Bruce Raynor and John Wilhelm, the union’s two presidents, have harshly criticized Sweeney. Wilhelm’s resignation from chair of the immigration committee last week–over proposed immigration reform legislation, where the AFL-CIO has a strong position supporting worker rights–might be taken as a prelude to departure. And although UFCW had seemed among the least likely to leave, President Joe Hansen has recently made strong statements threatening departure.
All the leaders, except Stern, express reluctance to leave, and to some extent the threat of exit has been a way to force concessions when it seems unlikely that any challenger to Sweeney would have a chance. While Sweeney has offered compromises on many points–such as the amount of dues rebates provided to unions for organizing, or rules governing rights of unions to organize particular sectors of workers–the Change to Win unions have dismissed them as inadequate.
There’s a chance for last-minute negotiations, including the possibility of a ticket that embraces Wilhelm or Laborers president Terry O’Sullivan, but any compromise appears remote. Indeed, some Change to Win unions, who would have to pay back dues to attend the convention, may decide not even to participate.
Fallout from the split
The Sweeney forces have argued that a split would be disastrous for labor. But beyond the abstract call for unity, what would be the fallout of a major split?
First, John Sweeney’s prestige and ability to present himself as spokesman for America’s unions will suffer a damaging blow, but labor might benefit from having more spokespeople and identifiable leaders, even with the risk of some divergent messages.
More important, it would mean much less money for the AFL-CIO, a loss not only of dues but also part of the income from a union credit card deal, putting at risk roughly a quarter of its income and many jobs at the federation. Sweeney has already announced cutbacks of more than 100 positions, even without any unions leaving. At the state and local level, federations and central labor councils would also lose money, but currently, not all unions pay dues at those levels anyway. And many central labor councils are trying to figure out ways to cooperate with departing unions, even if AFL-CIO rules are enforced.
But the money that any unions pulling out of the AFL-CIO save on dues will not be so large as to make a big difference in the amount of organizing they will undertake. And if they make Change to Win into a federation, they will also have to pay for at least some staff.
But beyond a loss of money, a split could undermine the cooperation that has grown at the state and local levels–as well as the political coordination at the national level, which has led to a more sophisticated and effective program to educate and mobilize members. Having two federations lobbying politicians could lead to mixed, weakened messages from organized labor. But then again, at the level of policies and candidates, unions have gone their own way on endorsements in many cases despite the unified AFL-CIO machinery.
The greatest risk to the labor movement will probably come from heightened warfare among unions in the form of raiding and conflicts over organizing and deliberate undercutting of rivals. This could consume huge amounts of resources and give the public an unfavorable impression of unions. Also, employers and Republican operatives will undoubtedly try to play up divisions as much as possible.
“The impact in the end would be that people in labor will fight each other,” argued one skilled trades union official who supports Sweeney. “It’s a triumph of egotism over solidarity.”
Pointing to the organizing gains made when the AFL and CIO were separate and competing from 1935 to 1955, some argue that competition might produce more organizing. But during that earlier period there was already an upsurge of worker organization and a sympathetic administration encouraging unionization–hardly the conditions that exist today.
The flipside
It’s also worth remembering that the labor movement has rarely been completely united under one umbrella anyway. (And in many other industrial countries, such as France and Italy, there are multiple labor federations that are typically divided along political lines, but usually under conditions that are more favorable, both legally and politically, to unions.) The nation’s biggest union–the National Education Association–is outside the AFL-CIO today, as are a number of smaller unions, as well as the Carpenters, who are now part of the Change to Win coalition. In 1969, the United Auto Workers left the AFL-CIO and formed the ill-fated Alliance for Labor Action with the Teamsters. Such lapses of “unity” have not been disastrous, even if they have occasionally weakened union influence.
Also, unions within the AFL-CIO aren’t always united on organizing or political strategy, and they often do little to help each other in fights. Even within the Change to Win coalition, SEIU and UNITE HERE have made it a major point to work with environmental groups, while the Teamsters (and to a slightly lesser degree, the Laborers) were very public opponents of one of the environmentalists’ top legislative priorities: stopping drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
Even keeping the AFL-CIO together won’t mean labor unity. Rather than see the choice as one between splitting or maintaining the federation, the real challenge is for labor to move in a new direction of greater mutual collaboration. Perhaps the model should be Jobs With Justice, the labor-community coalition that asks members to pledge “to be there” at least five times a year for some other group of workers. (Ironically, 10 years ago the Sweeney administration temporarily thought central labor councils could replace Jobs with Justice.) Such pledges of cross-union solidarity would be a good start for the AFL-CIO, and indeed the Change to Win unions hope to realize the potential of such cooperation among themselves.
But there is also very little that the Change to Win unions can do on their own that they couldn’t do by remaining within the AFL-CIO. If they want to work together more closely, which makes sense for all of the affiliates, they can do so either formally through the AFL-CIO, through their Change to Win formation or informally with anyone else. But splitting from the AFL-CIO might make it harder to forge new, productive relationships.
In the end, even though any split would be big news–and ultimately bad news in that it would reflect labor’s inability to forge a common strategy–it need not be a disaster. Then again, with enough ill will, even that is a possibility.
ABOUT THIS AUTHOR
David Moberg, a senior editor of In These Times, has been on the staff of the magazine since it began publishing in 1976. Before joining In These Times, he completed his work for a Ph.D. in anthropology at the University of Chicago and worked for Newsweek. He has received fellowships from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Nation Institute for research on the new global economy. He can be reached at davidmoberg@inthesetimes.com.
SAVE 53% OFF
Reader Comments
It seems to me that labor has to forge a consensus alliance if it is to survive. The political climate towards unions is very negative, rivaling the pre-depression years. The best thing for big bidness is to see a cracked front in the existing union alliance. I am not advocating untiy at the expense of good and democratic policy; rather I am urging the existing alliances to try to find a way of solving their problems that avoid disintegration. The government and its corporate counterparts have been chipping away at union participation rates for the last 60 years, and they may be preparing for their death blow if AFL-CIO unity appears to be on the verge of collapse.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 24, 2005 at 1:25 PM
When I say government I mean the Taft-Hartley Act and the spineless National Labor Relations Board that has not upheld the Wagner Act of 1935. But you are right that the federal bench is the biggest enforcer of union rights, however those judges are just an extension of the chief executive and the Congress that approves them.
Posted by Liberal on Jul 24, 2005 at 3:12 PM
The problem with union rights requiring judges and courts to uphold them is that they ossify and become the target of lawyers and others who wish to destroy them. In Australia over 100 years of union organisation and award rights is about to be torn up by the current conservative government. In my view the rights and powers that unions stand for have now been decisively rejected by the political class in both the US and here in OZ. This means that we are facing a situation unprecedented since the 1920s in your country, and since the 1850s in mine. The question is, are the old ways of doing business still good enough. I don’t think so. The issues are complex but in my mind the focus of union activity has to be to knit together the political and industrial diemsions of how power is deployed. I agree with much of what the change to wim people seem to be saying about the need to organise in industries with a strategy of building leverage and power over the labour market. That is Organising 101. Large general unions lacking any specific focus let down both their members and the general working class. However the issue is not just srtucture or rules. It is a wider issue of unions breaking out of the stright jacket of being purely ‘industrial’ and looking to do other things that organise working people even when they are not at work. Examples might be rent strikes, or campaigning against a major polluter, or organising assistance for immigrants who are in the uS without papers etc; There is nothing wrong with having a bit of messiness in the coverage of unions,and structures and bargaining units aren’t everything (although they are important), the main thing is that unions practice what they preach. If you can’t cooperate in the face of this unprecedented assault on working people’s living standards and democratic rights, then it doesn’t matter what the rules say, or what structures are in place. We have had mandated coverage in this counrty for 100 years and the government is going to tear up the rule book soon. We will be required to practice what we preach and ensure that unions do not go after each others’ members! This will be a test. Working people al over the world need a strong militant US union movement. Make no mistake-peopel understand very clearly the diferecne between ordinary US working people and the crooks that curently run your country. But the US working class movement needs to ensure that its vision is as large as the vision of its own ruling class. In other words, it would be good to see a vision for working peole that reached beyond the cliches mouthed by the usual suspects, and which offered a new deal based on mutual respect for differences and complete solidarity with movements of people struggling to overcome poverty, oppression and dictatorship, even when those dictators are friends of the US ruling class! Good luck with oyur struggle-we sure have our plates full as well.
Posted by Jane Doe on Jul 24, 2005 at 6:13 PM
Jane Doe- I was under the impression that Australians were more progressive than their counterparts here in the U.S. Is the populace taking kindly to this brazen use of political force to attack labor unions? Is the situation in Australia really as bad as it is in the U.S? America ranks last among the industrialized nations in terms of access to healthcare, infant mortality rate, workers’ protections, and income ditribution. In addition, recent reporting in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal indicate one has a better chance of moving up the economic ladder in Britain or France than America. I know John Howard is a turd but can he be as bad as George W. Bush, the worst leader in western history?
Posted by Liberal on Jul 24, 2005 at 7:21 PM
No,
John Howard is not worse than George Bush, because he has less power, not because he is a nicer guy! His whole career has been built on ‘kiss up, kick down’ politics ever since he left his father’s service station in a suburb of Sydney, did law, and decided to spend the rest of his life helping those that have more, get more! Back to your question. Australians have had the good fortune to have a more social democratic polity than the US, and as a consequence, we have far more social and economic equality here than you guys have-up until now. We have universal single payer health care, and unitl now a system of awards which underpin collective bargaining.The Australian people are not taking these plans lying down. In fact the government took a 10% drop in approval ratings once their plans became known. In addition, the ACTU (our version of the AFL-CIO) kicked off a great media and information campaign alerting people to what is at stake. People are simply gob smacked with the plans once the detail is spelt out. Active unions are going out into all their workplaces to educate the members about the changes and we are asking our mebers to attend community meetings in order to build community resistance to the plans. The ideas underpinning the Australian changes are based on the ususal nonesense peddled by free market mullahs about the sanctity of individual contract and the right of employers to do what they like, when they like to anyone they like. Fortunately in this country the sanctitiy of free contract and property rights in human beings is more lightly held than in the US. Most people, irresepctive of their views on other issues have a healthy scepticism about the ‘win win’ nature of corporate control of the workplace and evey other damned thing.
In my view and the views of others the government has made a fundamental error, based on the fact that they now have control of both houses of Parliament, much like Republican control of both the Reps and the Senate in the US. However nothing can be taken for granted. The union movement here is as united as I have ever seen it. No doubt about it everyone knows that what is at stake is not union rights, but the rights of ordinary working people whether they are in unions or not, to go about their business with some security, dignity and decent conditions at work. This ‘let it rip’ version of capitalism doesn’t play so well down under, so we are very sure that we are on firmer cultural ground than our opposition. The trouble is, power has its own logic, and we have to fight on a number of fronts if we are going to teach these people a lesson.
I hope that the US movement can rebuild itself around a progressive program of rights at work for every working person, whether they are US citizens or not, and I hope that the democratic forces within the US can reach out to other cultures which are just as rich as their own, in order to build enduring alliances from below, rather than the ones the US ruling class imposes through its allies in other countries like ours. It would be great to have visiting union leaders from the US warning working people in other countries about their future, if they let their own ruling class do to them, what the US ruling class has done to US working and middle class people. Good luck with everything, and keep up the good fight!
Posted by Jane Doe on Jul 24, 2005 at 8:02 PM
extended discussion >>>Continued...
Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 25 posts.