| by David Usborne |
The American labor movement was on the brink of civil war last night as two major unions, including the Teamsters, prepared to leave the country's main labor congress, the AFL-CIO, amid bitter recriminations over its leadership and failure to reverse a steep membership decline. Hostilities broke into the open on Sunday when four large unions announced that they were boycotting the annual convention of the AFL-CIO, which got under way in Chicago yesterday. It then emerged that two of the four were likely also to withdraw from the alliance altogether. The two departing unions, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union, have 1.4 and 1.8 million members respectively. Their revolt represents a body blow - both in morale terms and financially - to the AFL-CIO and was being described as the worst rift in the labor movement since 1930. It risks further undermining union strength in the United States which has been in decline for decades, eroded by dwindling membership rolls, the effects of automation, the relentless rush to improve productivity, and the ramifications of globalization and increased world competition. The AFL, the American Federation of Labor, and the CIO, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, broke away from one another in the 1930s. However, they merged again in 1955 and this year's convention was meant to be a celebration of that 50-year marriage. In all that time, the AFL-CIO, roughly equivalent to Britain's TUC, has been the voice of organized labor in the country. But while roughly one in three workers in the private sector belonged to a union in America half a century ago, only 8 per cent do so today. The relentlessness of that decline and the political environment now makes union power still less credible and has given rise to the tensions of today. A splintering of the labor movement also bodes ill for the Democratic Party, which for generations has depended on labor leaders to galvanize voters as well as raise funds for candidates for the White House and Congress. Last year, almost a quarter of all the votes cast in the presidential race came from union households, a majority of which supported the Democrat, John Kerry. Part of the battle is being fought over John Sweeney, leader of the AFL-CIO for 10 years, who is expected to win re-election this week. Activists have been fighting to have him removed, arguing he has failed to re-energize the movement. Seven unions now belong to an ad hoc grouping - the "Change to Win Coalition" - opposed to Mr Sweeney's re-election. All may end up breaking ranks. They are demanding new leadership and more funds to allow individual unions to merge and launch new membership drives. "The AFL-CIO, to its credit, has listened to us. But in the end, they have not heard us. The language of reform has been adopted, but not the substance ... We have reached a point where our differences have become unresolvable," said Anna Burger, the chairman of Change to Win. Backers of Mr Sweeney, 71, have come close to branding their departing brethren as traitors to the cause. "Today is a tragic day because those that left the house of labor ... are weakening our house and shame on them," growled Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, which will remain in the fold. Others contended that the dissidents, far from helping, were playing into the hands of those who would like to see the movement grow weaker still. "I think the only one who wins from this is George Bush and his minions who are trying to weaken labor unions," said Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. |
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Democrats Watch in Horror as Union Base Falls Apart
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I have not paid enough attention to this but I can't believe this headline -- it seems to me that this could bode very well for the union movement in the long run. Somenbodt has to do some more organizing -- and the more organized workers the more Democratic voters -- is there any doubt about that?
I'm not saying it is all milk and honey but I think this is much more complex than the falling apart of labor. The AFL-CIO needs a shake-up (Sweeney promised to bring that when he was elected in the first place) and perhaps this is it.
A different veiw:
Solidarity Later: Andy Stern and CWC Challenge AFL Power Base
by Molly Ivins
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.
I agree. I like this article much better.
Post a Comment