MyDD :: AFL-CIO Breakup Imminent

AFL-CIO Breakup Imminent

by Chris Bowers, Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 06:30:58 PM EST

In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that while I am not actually paid by SEIU, the only client I am currently paid to consult for is SEIU. Further, I have also been a member of the American Federation of Teachers, and an employee of the AFL-CIO itself--Chris

This is huge--at least as big as Rove or Roberts. Looks like it is pretty much a sure thing now:

Four unions representing about 30 percent of the AFL-CIO's U.S. membership will boycott the labor federation's annual convention, a first step toward one of the biggest splits in the organized labor movement in 70 years, union officials familiar with the matter said.

The Service Employees International Union, the AFL-CIO's fastest growing union with 1.3 million members, along with the Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers, and Unite Here will announce later today that they won't attend this week's AFL- CIO meeting in Chicago, the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said.

SEIU President Andrew Stern, 54, and the three other dissident labor chiefs aren't expected to announce they are pulling out of the AFL-CIO, though that may come as early as tomorrow, the officials said.

More than four unions are going to split, including the Carpenters, the Laborers, and the Farm Workers

The United Farm Workers of America (UFW) announced today that it was joining the Change to Win Coalition, the new workers organization devoted to transforming the American labor movement.

"To realize our goal of organizing significant numbers of low-to moderate-wage Latino and immigrant workers in the face of fierce employer resistance during the next decade, we must move aggressively to apply new resources and make changes in our own organization," said UFW President Arturo Rodriguez. "We are convinced the Change to Win Coalition mirrors our commitment of finding new ways to refocus on organizing and vigorously pursue anti-worker employers."

This is not, as Parker suggests, a harbinger of the Democratic Party. Unlike our electoral system, the workplace is not a two-party system structurally enforced by a winner-take all system. There is nothing uncommon, nor has there ever been anything uncommon, about unions competing over the same turf. For example, in almost half of the campaigns I worked on for the American Federation of Teachers, our major competition was actually the National Education Association, rather than management. However, when unions compete against each other, it is not necessarily bad for workers, as the competition can sometimes spur a greater amount of new organizing within each union. The UAW and the CIO found this out in the 1930's. I have never seen a prospective bargaining unit where two unions were competing that ended up not having a union.

That is not to say that there will be no consequences in this split for Democrats and progressives:

The A.F.L.-C.I.O., with 13 million union members, has long provided the Democrats with their most effective get-out-the-vote operation. In the 2004 election, households with union members accounted for 24 percent of all votes, and among voters from those households, Mr. Kerry had a 5.8 million majority.

In last year's campaign, unions mailed out more than 30 million pieces of literature and ran 257 phone banks with 2,322 lines in 16 states. Although unions splintered in the primaries behind Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dean and John Edwards, they ultimately rallied behind Mr. Kerry and worked hard for him. Union members voted two-to-one for Mr. Kerry in the general election.

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, an umbrella group comprising 56 unions, coordinated campaign efforts nationwide, and many political leaders said a schism would inevitably undermine such coordination.

While labor is definitely a potent political force on behalf of Democrats, I would argue that even their political activities actually work best for progressives and for workers when they are coordinated with other groups, including civil rights and environmental organizations. Further, GOTV efforts tend to work better when they are conducted by people in your neighborhood anyway, which is an issue entirely separate from this split.

Overall, I can't agree with DhinMI's tone in his article today where he seems to be very down on the prospect of a split. Yes, union members are just about the only segment of the white and white male populations that vote Democrat, and yes unions are the progressive voice in the workplace, which is undeniably one of the most important ideological conversion mechanisms in the country. However, there are other segments of the white and white male populations that do in fact vote Democrat, including seculars, the GLBT community, and the Jewish community. Further, unlike the labor movement, which is shrinking in size, the secular population is exploding. In fact, while the rise of seculars is one of the demographic trends that gives progressives electoral hope for the future, the current decline in the labor movement should give us extreme cause for concern. Unless the labor movement rises, which it clearly has not under the guidance of the AFL-CIO over the past few decades, the future of progressivism, especially in the workplace, is bleak. So while these unions may be splitting, and while this may cause more competition between unions, the value of maintaining the current structure is not in clear to me. What the leaders of this separatist charge, Andy Stern and SEIU, is doing seems to be working, as they are actually rapidly increasing in size at a time when overall unions are in decline. I, for one, am more willing to support a plan that seems to be working rather than one that seems to be failing.

For more on this, see TPM Cafe's new House of Labor blog, DH inMI's interview with Andy Stern, my interview with Andy Stern, and Trapper John's primer on the AFL-CIO.

Tags: Labor (all tags)

Permalink :: 25 Comments :: Post a Comment

No Coincidence (none / 0)

The SEIU has rising influence because of the shift in jobs. Fewer manufacturing jobs, more service jobs. By my lights, the problems is that within the AFL and other very large unions there is a lack of good management. The grocery clerk strike here in California exemplfied that. If your employer does not respect and fear your union, you might as well skip paying the dues.

Unsaid too is that union bosses have been too complacent with the elected leaders about illegal immigration and free trade. The unions have to make it abundandtly clear that if the politicians don't stand up for all workers' rights they are standing up for no workers' rights. The right gets this with their pressure groups like the Club for Growth. Now if only the left would too, so both sides can have a fighting chance.

by risenmessiah on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 06:48:54 PM EST

Re: No Coincidence (none / 0)

fat lot of good the seiu's endorsement
of Dean did for him.

seiu people canvass because they are
going to pick up a check for 50
bucks at the end of the day.

christian grassroots people
take their entire neighborhood
and deliver it. the signs go up,
and your neighbor is gop and
your neighbor across the street is
GOP and before you know it, you're
GOP and the GOP wins without one
union endorsement anywhere.

by turnerbroadcasting on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 08:16:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Coincidence (none / 0)

Turner,

It's true that the SEIU membership might not have the same heart in it that their predecessors might have. But does that mean that people who protest the Iraq war in the street are less genuine than their forebears simply because there is no draft?

The Christian grassroots is not that strong. The harsh reality is this: they look strong and formidable because the old Democrat political machines are almost completely dismantled. In the land of the blind, the one man is still king. Secondly the Democrats are afraid to play the faith card because they don't want to alienate the base. It's a circular argument.

But moreover, of course the GOP wins without a union endorsement. The GOP has done everything possible to turn the clock back to the days of Oliver Twist. Republicans hate unions by and large, and if your occupation is not unionized you will encounter less Democrats. And your point is? The GOP wins without the Jewish, the black vote, the environmental vote, women voters.

by risenmessiah on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 01:43:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Coincidence (none / 0)

While I don't think the Christian Grassroots is as weak as you imply, I agree they aren't as powerful as the MSM and they themselves feel they are... Otherwise, Bush would have nominated someone very outspoken against R v W, instead of someone who gives conflicting statements. But I think what Turner is saying is they are fanatical about their cause, something that the rank and file of the SEIU are probably all not. I saw abortion protestors yesterday in 100+ heat. I am not sure if we would see a union protest in that heat. Most of the Fundies are willing to die for their cause (much like the fundie Islamic terrorists of the world) because they think the reward in heaven is greater. Back in the day, most union members were willing (and did) to do this too. I am not sure if that is the case now adays.

The best way is to rebuild some newer machines and also recruit... ultimately, this will be a numbers game. Even getting 75% of the effort the Fundies put out will be more than enough if we have a much bigger group to work with.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 10:24:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Coincidence (none / 0)

Well...it is undoubtedly true that more sheltered Americans in general become...the less likely they are to put themselves in harm's way for ideological ends. The evangelical or Chrisitian movement does have a curious parallel to its Islamic counterparts. Usually, groups like Al Qaeda are strongest where there are either state-supported (Iran, Syria) or where the regime is so undemocratic that the regime uses rhetoric to stir up animosity towards something (Israel and its occupation) and divert attention.

I mean really, I would bet some of the religious pandering in "red states" is pure calculation that the more frenzied people are about lesbians in public school (now paging Tom Coburn) the less people might press for real reform. In a state like New York or California where reform is basically adjusting previously reforms done 100 years ago...that sounds mild. But in many Southern states where their constitutions bar collecting income taxes or allowing government employees to unionize...whoa...that's big.

I think the best way to rebuild the "machines" if you will is to break apart the AFL-CIO. It's to get the specific unions to build membership and avoid being too ensconched in Washington. The Republicans already own that beat, so we might as well make ourselves at home in the state capitals, where much of the pertinent labor law is decided. Alabama now produces more cars than Michigan. Why we aren't there trying to sign up people and warn them about Wal-Mart free subsidies as opposed to what we are doing now is beyond me.

by risenmessiah on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:06:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First of all I asked... not suggested (none / 0)

I asked the question because the Democratic party seems to be eerily paralleling the same disfunctionalites of AFL-CIO. However, as I see the Democratic Party is rushing headfirst over the clift trying to renact every failed DLC strategy for the last decade.

As for white males it was suggested that there seems to be a burgeoning population of gay environmentalists with a PhD who live in Brookline MA or Manhattan (ha ha ha..joke?)

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 07:12:18 PM EST

DLC (none / 0)

The labor split is non-ideological--it is about power, organizational philosophy, and facing up to new economic structures and realities. While there is also a non-ideological split within the Democratic Party over power, strategy and facing up to new political realities, the DLC itself remains an ideological organization within the Democratic Party. Also, another main difference is those people with new strategies seem to be winning the day within the Democratic Party, unlike the AFL-CIO.

Perhaps this is hte main difference--it is far more possible to work within the Democratic PArty to change the Party than it is to work within the AFL-CIO to change the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO is, at best, an extremely loose confederation where member unions ahve no real power over each other. By contrast, the cnetralized nature of the DNC, DSCC and DCCC make it entirely possible to massively influence the reast of the party by working within it. Centrist groups like the DLC have been doing this for decades, but now have their hands full with the partisan, progressive and reformist movements that are rapidly on the rise now.

Besides, like I have said in the past, if there is a real split withint he Democratic Party, its the Blue Dogs, not he DLC, that functionally acts as a third-party organization.

by Chris Bowers on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 07:35:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: DLC (none / 0)

No, the blue dogs are just fine.
The Unions have been wanting to sell the idea
that their endorsements really matter.

The AFSCME and SEIU endorsements of Dean
didn't do anything at all. It was almost
laughable how they proceeded to withdraw
the endorsement when Dean was
torpedoed by his own party and his
own supporters..

If the party has any trouble, thats the subject
of another post. The unions really can't
do anything for anyone, anymore,
especially workers in America.

8% of all workers are in a union.
Thats just nothing. As a CEO I have
no concern whatsoever of them, anywhere,
anytime, any day. Then again, I'm in software..

by turnerbroadcasting on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 08:13:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Minor correction (none / 0)

The carpenters split off in 2002.

Also, a historical note, in 1941, when the AFL / CIO
was just gaining ground - most of the unions
were headed up by communists.

There were really funny flyers running around
campus - for example - one read -

"we're just like you - we love to have parties,
eat pizza, we go to dances. the only difference
is we believe dialectical materialism solves
all problems."

that was circulating in 1939 in new england
for a group of communist campus party members.

the communist party saw its formal status
more as it was recognized in russia, than here.
in 1941, when Stalin signed a non-aggression
pact with Hitler, communist had its brains
dashed out on the ground. Although it could
be easily enough said that the left
never did enough to keep hitler
from rising to power in Germany -

It was really important to note that here
in the states, the unions weathered it by
basically folding communist party members
into their ranks and campaigning for
Roosevelt.

Now the union members here in Ga. have been
experiencing a terrific decline. For example,
one union had members on the city council
in every city - now gone. Most rural
folk are non-unionized, because of
immigrant labour. The remaindering skilled
trades are also feeling immigrant labour
move in and take the standard paying
jobs.

The net result is that the unions tend to
have a presence, in the south, basically
in the automotive plant.

As a CEO I should say fair disclosure
that I've always wanted IT workers to
form a good union because they're
like the mail, and the telephone employees -
its not good for america to have
software running the stoplights that can
crash at a moments notice and have
to wait for someone in India to wake up
and fix it..

by turnerbroadcasting on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 08:10:30 PM EST

Don't just dump on TurnerBroadcasting (none / 0)

The points TurnerBroadcasting are making, while broad brush and troll-like, are in fact correct, and are behind the split.

The AFL-CIO set-up has been losing steam for decades, and they refuse to get behind new ideas from unions like SEIU.

So it makes sense for groups like SEIU to offer some competition.

I think real competition is the key to success. That's what makes me a liberal. So-called conservatives believe in monopoly -- in business, in power, in philosophy, in religion.

Unions are, by their nature, conservative, and their natural conservatism has been strangling them.

Let's see what happens. It's not like Andy Stern is a Republican.

by Dana Blankenhorn on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 08:57:51 PM EST

Re: Don't just dump on TurnerBroadcasting (3.00 / 1)

I'd generally agree. Working in the building trades in Pittsburgh I've definitely seen plenty of union activity. Painting with broad strokes I'd say it falls into two categories:
1> Protectionism
2> Quality for Cost

When unions offer nothing to the client (in this case a building owner) but a promise that they'll have extra guys on site because a particular role is mandated, it just rubs everyone the wrong way. (Actually, they don't do this directly, but there are still some defunct roles like elevator operator that are mandate by law on job site because of union pressure).

The second option is what the local Carpenter's Union has done. They have hired all the best workers, mandate all members attend training annually, keep the union members up to date on new technologies and even connect with allied professions and do cooperative training to assist in communication. As a result it is easy to say I've had jobs where it was reassuring to have union workers taking care of things.

This is why I think unions should be the ones getting out front on environmental issues. Often the big hangups are labor related. Issues such as requiring the seperation of waste, increased worker safety or even work flow efficiencies. In the end it is workers that make these programs succeed or submarine them. If unions bring an extra card of value to the mix (ie, all our janitors are trained to get your building more clean than you are used to, with less noise and use of chemicals) then they have something to bargain with.

I guess I've rambled on long enough. Nutshell is that I agree a little shake-up could be a good thing.

by PghArch on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 11:53:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't just dump on TurnerBroadcasting (none / 0)

By hired, I mean recruited. One of the key changes they made is that they eliminated the old political hierarchy, and made it easier for General Contractors to hire the guys they want under the union label.

by PghArch on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 11:55:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't just dump on TurnerBroadcasting (none / 0)

Don't the Electrical Workers do that too (train etc)? I always hear them advertising in Chicago (or I think it is them).

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 10:29:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

off-topic (none / 0)

I'm really uninformed about the labor movement so I can't really contribute to this discussion, but I do have a minor correction: could you please change the word "Democrat" to "Democratic" in the second-to-last paragraph, second sentence?

Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.

by Fran for Dean on Sun Jul 24, 2005 at 09:05:30 PM EST

Competing Unions (none / 0)

"I have never seen a prospective bargaining unit where two unions were competing that ended up not having a union."

California farmworkers? Because I remember a pretty brutal competion between the UFW and the Teamsters in the late seventies that left most field workers out in the cold (or more properly hot) when it came to the end of the day.

by Bruce Webb on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 03:02:58 AM EST

Re: Competing Unions (none / 0)

The way NLRB elections work, from what I remember, the top two vote getters have a runoff if no one has an absolute majority. So if it's union A, union B, and no union, one or both of the unions will end up in the final vote.

by telephasic on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 12:10:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Competing Unions (none / 0)

If you believe California farm workers are largely unionized today, and that the Teamsters were not simply working as stooges for growers you need a lot more links. It does not always come down to an NLRB election. Or you can show me different.

by Bruce Webb on Thu Jul 28, 2005 at 11:50:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

healthcare (none / 0)

I know practically nothing about unions but it doesn't stop me from making an observation... what if unions co-sponsored healthcare insurance to it members ... then I bet companies would themselves be knocking on the union doors to unionize their shop floors...

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 03:14:18 AM EST

Re: healthcare (none / 0)

I don't think Walmart would unionize if the Unions paid all the healthcare costs for employees and slipped the board a little extra. Not a bad idea though... It would help people that is for sure.

by yitbos96bb on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 10:31:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It already exists... (none / 0)

Not every worksite has it, but look at "union health and welfare funds" if you want some information. They're run jointly my management and union reps, much like union pension funds. Generally they don't do the full cost of insurance however, but cover things like dental, vision, and prescription drugs. It's generally been unions who represent lots of small employers (like the Teamsters and the building trades) who have had these funds, were unions like the UAW historically just pushed the Company to pay for everything.

The Steelworkers have their own health insurance that they now allow other unions to have shops sign onto as well. It's very low cost.

As for unions picking up 50% of the health care cost in general, it would very quickly bankrupt unions however. Established funds have a lot of resources, so member dues don't need to go towards it. However, hundreds of dollars per worker per month...the workers might as well pay it themselves, because it would have to come right out of their dues.

by telephasic on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 12:09:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It already exists... (none / 0)

Thanks...

I ask this because not only the Wal-martisation of America is killing unions but there just aren't any more "Good factory jobs".

The job growth for the past 10 years have been with small business who employ no over 50% of the workforce. Perhaps the unions should look into unionizing on the micro level... if they used there collective bargaining to get good insurance rates they would have small businesses who just can't afford health insurance for their employees not the Walmarts who are just too greedy.

Unions + Health insurance + Small business = 50 working poplulation

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 01:02:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It already exists... (none / 0)

Your post makes me think of a good reason why union-supported health insurance makes sense...bargaining leverage.

If a union (or group of unions working together) becomes numerically dominant in a given region, and supplies health insurance, then any insurance provider who wishes to deal with them has to provide good rates. Just like collective bargaining means more power than standing alone in the workplace, a union acting as the bargaining agent for workers at 100 worksites will have more leverage than the 100 bosses doing the bargaining themselves.

That said, except in a few places (like Las Vegas) I think density is currently too low to enact this sort of change.

Organizing small employers is actually much easier than organizing large employers. The problem is sustainability. If you have a shop of 350, it won't be that difficult to find leaders for each shift and work area. But with a shop of 35, you're really dependent on a few people, and shop cohesion can totally go away if they flake out. De-certification at small shops is very high.

Also, unions lose money organizing small shops, I'm sorry to say. More money is required per member to organize a small shop than a larger one. In fact, generally unions will never make back in dues the money a small employer costs to organize.

My own union doesn't organize shops under 100 people unless they have a dedicated amalgamated local to put them in in the area.

by telephasic on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 03:22:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It already exists... (none / 0)

Like I said I am not a union person... but still considering that the growth in employment is small businesses who have a hard time providing healthcare to its workers... just seems like a natural fit for unions.

But I see the problem you point out... that is because the framework of unions was built on the large factory model. You are correct that it takes the same amount of time and effort to unionize a factory of 1000 as a factory of 50.

This make me think of the mew trend that is happening in Developing countries with "micro" credit. That is poor people couldn't get loans from banks because it cost banks that same amount of time and money to process loans of one million dollars as it did 50 dollars.

Finally someone (Grameen Bank) came up with a framework suitable for small and micro loans and now it is sky rocketing.

So perhaps the unions can get their thinking caps on and create a union framework just for small businesses... the carrot would be health insurance. You would probably have the owners themselves pushing the workers to join.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 03:49:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It already exists... (none / 0)

You have to check out Krugman today

There has been fierce competition among states hoping to attract a new Toyota assembly plant. Several Southern states reportedly offered financial incentives worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

But last month Toyota decided to put the new plant, which will produce RAV4 mini-S.U.V.'s, in Ontario. Explaining why it passed up financial incentives to choose a U.S. location, the company cited the quality of Ontario's work force.

What made Toyota so sensitive to labor quality issues? Maybe we should discount remarks from the president of the Toronto-based Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, who claimed that the educational level in the Southern United States was so low that trainers for Japanese plants in Alabama had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech equipment.

But there are other reports, some coming from state officials, that confirm his basic point: Japanese auto companies opening plants in the Southern U.S. have been unfavorably surprised by the work force's poor level of training.

There's some bitter irony here for Alabama's governor. Just two years ago voters overwhelmingly rejected his plea for an increase in the state's rock-bottom taxes on the affluent, so that he could afford to improve the state's low-quality education system. Opponents of the tax hike convinced voters that it would cost the state jobs.

But education is only one reason Toyota chose Ontario. Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 04:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

AFL-CIO breakup (none / 0)

This, as far as I am concerned is good news. As a former union organizer and official, I always adhered to the axiom, "Organize or die". The AFL-CIO has been dying and not organizing, with the excpetion of the organizations that are part of the present schism. The constituencies they represent are the most exploited, the lowest paid and the most socially and politically isolated members of society. The act of organizing iltself politicizes workers, even if the union involved fails to successfully organize in a particular effort, while successful campaigns create a political mass in the workplace with ripple effects among family members. There is a degree of solidarity in the union house that doesn't exist elsewhere.

Secondly, the AFL-CIO will no longer be the only umbrella in the stand, and the point about competition is well taken. Other unions may, in fact, gravitate toward the dissident unions, especially if they begin to successfully organize with the increased funds they have available for their own use. The old unions will have to compete in a more agressive organizing environment, both to boost membership and to prevent further defections.

Thirdly, any political candidates seeking the support of thses dissident unions will have to walk the walk on working America's issues. The indepence of these unions could have a salutory effect on state and local elections, as well as some "orphan" congressional districts. Their largely minority, particularly hispanc, constituency is one of the key demographics in supplanting the GOP majority. Their organizers speak the language, both personally and politically , needed to enegize these communities. Economicallu disadvantaged whites, male or female, are a major part of the workforces of WalMart, KMart and Target stores. If they can be attracted into the fold, then the Democratic Party can then be in a position to solidify a firm new addition to their political foundation. Theses unions are also out of Patience with the DLC. They are in touch with the roots.

by Docsilver on Mon Jul 25, 2005 at 02:11:24 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.