(for access without registration, visit http://www.bugmenot.com for an anonymous login id and password)

quote:

---

Fifty years after it was formed by a merger of two powerful factions of labor unions, the AFL-CIO is on the brink of a historic split. If there's any single person to blame, or praise, for what happens next, it's an intense Ivy League graduate with a penchant for purple, the unifying color of the 1.8-million-member Service Employees International Union.

SEIU President Andrew Stern set the maelstrom in motion in November as labor leaders were still licking their wounds from a costly failure to help elect Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) as president.

Stern said the federation of 60 unions was dying of inertia, and threatened to pull out unless it changed dramatically — among other things, by dropping nearly all other activities in favor of organizing new members and forcing smaller, ineffective unions to consolidate into 15 stronger mega-unions.

As head of the AFL-CIO's largest and fastest-growing union, Stern could not be ignored, although many found his style imperious. His ideas, modified, are now supported by the presidents of four major unions: Unite Here, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Laborers International Union and the United Food and Commercial Workers. Together with the SEIU, they represent a 40% block of votes in the AFL-CIO.

---

(Slightly edited thread title, 07/24/05. -RD)

[ 24 July 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:
I can't see any good coming out of a split at this point.

---

quote:

---

Via Facsimile

June 3, 2005

Mr. John J. Sweeney
President
American Federation of Labor and
Congress of Industrial Organizations
815 Sixteenth Street, NW
Washington DC 20006-4104

Dear Sir and Brother:

To all of us in the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, you are, John, genuinely a brother and a leader. You stood with us on the picket lines in Southern California, you marched on Wal-Mart Headquarters with us, you went to jail with us in Worcester, Massachusetts, and you rallied the labor movement for us in every one of our strikes and organizing campaigns. You have been a tireless warrior for the cause of working America. Your service is recognized, respected, and honored in every UFCW union hall in North America.

We are now engaged in a great debate about the future, not just of the AFL-CIO, our individual unions, or individual leaders. This debate will shape the future well-being of working families for generations. We live in a new and rapidly evolving world economy. What worked in the past is not a guide for the future. For us to do more of the same now will only get workers more of the same of what they face now—greedy employers, a hostile government, and attacks on their living standards. Resistance to change is not only short-sighted, it betrays our obligation to workers in America and around the world.

In our conversations, and in your public statements, you have repeatedly said that you believe there is little difference between the two primary positions in the debate. I respectfully disagree. It is not a matter of dollars and cents, as you have suggested regarding the rebate proposal for core industry organizing, where you simply split the difference and call it compromise. It is not a debate about who wins an election or holds a position, nor is it a conflict between organizing and politics, where you can somehow divide up the offices and the budget to please everyone. Tinkering with the status quo is not adequate to meet the needs of working families, nor is it sufficient to maintain a united AFL-CIO.

There are serious and substantive differences about the direction, the structure, and the operations of the AFL-CIO and the labor movement that must be addressed and resolved in the interests of our current and future members. More of the same is not acceptable to UFCW, nor is it to America’s workers. The status quo will not stand.

---

If the goal is organizing then it makes NO SENSE to have a dozen unions trying to organize the same workers. That's happening in the States and it's happening here. The CAW, for example, seems to spend more time raiding then organizing the unorganized. It's bullshit.

quote:

---

The likelihood of a schism in organized labor increased yesterday when five major unions formed a growth-oriented coalition and the presidents of four of the unions hinted strongly that they might quit the A.F.L.-C.I.O.

The presidents of the Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers, and Unite Here yesterday joined an earlier threat by the Service Employees International Union to end their affiliations because they are so unhappy with the labor federation.

"We believe that this labor movement needs to be born again," said Bruce Raynor, president of Unite Here, which represents hotel, restaurant and apparel workers. "The labor movement as personified by the current A.F.L.-C.I.O. structure has been unsuccessful in standing up for working families."

The four unions represent nearly one-third of the members of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., a federation of 57 unions and 13 million workers, and if they quit it would greatly weaken the federation, hurt its budget and cause fighting within labor.

At a news conference in Washington, the leaders of the five unions forming the new coalition - the fifth is the Laborers' International Union of North America - said they were banding together to promote aggressive union organizing because they believed that the federation and most of its unions had done too little to organize nonunion workers.

"The basic principle that brings us here today is that American workers cannot win a better life unless more workers belong to unions," the union presidents said in a statement. "If the labor movement doesn't adopt dramatic changes today to cope with the new economy, it will find itself marginalized into oblivion. We come together today to prevent that."

The statement was signed by Mr. Raynor; John W. Wilhelm, president of Unite Here's hotel and restaurant division; James P. Hoffa, the Teamsters president; Joe Hansen, president of the food and commercial workers; Andrew Stern, president of the service employees; and Terence O'Sullivan, president of the laborers' union.

---

Read the rest.

(NY Times login: babblers8 , password: audrarules)

Dissenting union coalition website: http://www.changetowin.org/

AFL-CIO website: http://www.aflcio.org/

[ 17 June 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Four major unions decided Sunday to boycott the AFL-CIO convention, setting the stage for one or more to bolt from the 50-year-old federation in a battle over how to reverse organized labor's decades-long decline, The Associated Press has learned.

The unions, representing about one-third of the AFL-CIO's 13 million members, planned to announce the decision Sunday afternoon, a day before the convention opens, according to three labor officials familiar with the failed negotiations to avoid the walkout.

None of the four dissident unions planned to formally severe ties from the AFL-CIO on Sunday, officials said, but they are now poised to do so at a later date.

The protest is led by Andy Stern, president of the federation's largest union, the 1.8 million-member Service Employees International Union. He is virtually certain to pull his union out of the AFL-CIO in coming days, with hopes of bringing his allies along, officials said.

Joining him in the boycott will be the Teamsters, United Food and Commercial Workers and UNITE HERE, a group of textile and hotel workers, according to the labor officials.

---

quote:

---

Officials from the Service Employees International Union and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters who insisted on anonymity because a formal announcement had not been made said their unions would announce on Monday, the day the convention begins, that they were quitting the federation. The service employees, with 1.8 million members, and the Teamsters, with 1.4 million, are two of the biggest unions in the A.F.L.-C.I.O. They contribute $20 million each year, or about one-sixth of its budget.

In addition, Joe Hansen, the president of the United Food and Commercial Workers, indicated that his union would probably also leave, despite Mr. Sweeney's efforts to persuade them to stay.

. . . .

The four unions boycotting the convention represent about one-third of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s 13 million members. The A.F.L.-C.I.O. is the nation's main labor federation, a grouping of 56 unions that coordinates union activities in politics and often serves as the voice of American workers on job safety, raising the minimum wage and other issues.

The dissident leaders asserted that the federation, as structured, was not equipped to halt labor's decline. They said they were looking to a group they formed, the Change to Win Coalition, to encourage union growth with, for instance, multiunion organizing drives against large companies, including Federal Express and Wal-Mart.

---

http://tinyurl.com/aduzl

The best source for an "insider" perspective on this debate is definitely Jonathan Tasini's Working Life blog, which I think I've linked earlier on this thread as well.

quote:

---

Associated Press:

CHICAGO - The Teamsters and a major service employees union on Monday bolted from the AFL-CIO, a stinging exodus for an embattled movement struggling to stop membership losses and adjust to a rapidly changing working environment.

In a decision that AFL-CIO President John Sweeney labeled a “grievous insult” to labor’s rank-and-file, the Teamsters union and the Service Employees International Union, two major federation affiliates, said they decided to leave.

“In our view, we must have more union members in order to change the political climate that is undermining workers’ rights in this country,” said Teamsters President James P. Hoffa. “The AFL-CIO has chosen the opposite approach.”

The Teamsters joined the Service Employees International Union, the largest AFL-CIO affiliate with 1.8 million members, in bolting. The SEIU is a union that AFL-CIO President John Sweeney once headed. They said they were forming a competing labor coalition designed to reverse labor’s long decline in union membership.

---

As for the basis of the dispute in the US, its like this: Unions pay "per capita" dues to the AFL-CIO based on their membership. The "dissident" unions (SEIU, Teamsters, UFCW, Carpenters, Laborers, UNITE-HERE and the Farm Workers) have demanded that the AFL-CIO refund up to 50% of the dues that unions pay to the AFL-CIO, in exchange for a commitment from the unions receiving a refund that those unions will meet certain criteria for their own organizing efforts. The "dissident" unions also demanded that $25 million which the AFL-CIO currently receives in royalties for a credit card program it sponsors for members, be put into a special fund dedicated to organizing Walmart.

The Sweeney team attempted to meet the dissident unions halfway, promising smaller rebates for unions which meet less stringent union organizing criteria. They also promised additional money for a strategic organizing fund that currently exists for unions to tap into.

Finally, the Sweeney team proposed to dedicate additional money to political activity in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles.

Jonathan Tasini posted a comparison of the two proposals here: Is Yours Better Than Mine?

In any case, with SEIU and the Teamsters leaving the federation, and other unions perhaps to follow, the end result is rather than a 50% rebate for unions which follow a centrally determined organizing plan, instead a self-selected group is getting a 100% rebate to do with what they wish. As I said above, I only hope that the "dissidents" actions on organizing match their rhetoric.

[ 25 July 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

On the eve of the national AFL-CIO convention in Chicago, Steven Pearlstein said yesterday in the Washington Post that "the decline of the labor movement is as much the story of missed opportunity as it is one of changing political and economic circumstances. And the blame lies squarely with union leaders more concerned with preserving the past than retaking the moral high ground and grabbing hold of the future."

"This isn't a problem only for union members," he said. "It's no coincidence that the decline in union membership mirrors a decline in the share of national income going to workers, along with declines in income equality and social mobility. Having a vibrant, market-savvy union movement is in everyone's interest, whether people choose to join one or not."

On the plane to Chicago after reading that, I was thinking about what this convention could have been if the AFL-CIO officers had made different choices.

Instead of headlines like "New Split in Organized Labor?" the headlines could have been "New Hope for American Workers."

New hope for Fed Ex workers to unite with their Teamster brothers and sisters at UPS so everyone who works in that industry would have their hard work rewarded.

New hope for security officers across America -- many of them African American -- trying to win a paycheck that supports a family, health care, and a pension.

New hope for Wal-Mart workers - a majority of whom take home wages below the poverty line without affordable health coverage or retirement.

New hope for workers in manufacturing, construction, transportation, health care, property services, public employment, and other sectors given the chance to unite behind strategies for growing strength in their industries - instead of being divided into many competing unions that don't coordinate.

New hope for the 13 million current union members who cannot consistently win and maintain middle-class standards as long as 9 out of 10 workers in America have no union.

This convention could have been a chance for workers to celebrate the union movement's modernization after 50 years of change in our economy -- a dramatic event as historic as the founding of the CIO in the 1930s.

It could have been an inspirational discussion of strategies to unite workers in each industry or occupation - and to build unions with the focus and resources to do that.

It could have highlighted new global union partnerships that are not just about general solidarity but about specific campaigns uniting the strength of employees of the same global corporations.

It could have made historic progress on diversity not only through standards and timetables but by setting the stage to help millions of people of color and working women to form unions and change their lives and communities.

All this was possible earlier this year when it became clear that 40 percent of the AFL-CIO, including 3 of the 4 largest affiliates, was prepared to support real change. The AFL-CIO officers could have chosen to use their powers of persuasion to build on that base and organize a majority.

Instead, they chose to start with the 50-year-old structure of 57 separate and overlapping unions as a given and then water down every proposal so it wouldn't offend entrenched interests and outmoded traditions. They chose not to lead and to help workers win -- but to play it safe and do nothing that might disturb the lowest common denominator status quo.

The AFL-CIO's opportunity appears to have been lost, but the crisis facing working people in America remains. It will apparently take another convention this fall of unions committed to change to provide the new hope working people need.

quote:

---

Mr. Stern, on the other hand, wants far more aggressive recruitment efforts and the ability to crack down on labor leaders who fall short of organizing goals. Mr. Stern and his allies have called for rebating half the federation's budget to individual unions to spur organizing, but Mr. Sweeney protests that such a move would cripple the federation's efforts in political campaigns, job safety and other areas.

While Mr. Stern and his allies say their walkout is based on fundamental principles about what is the best course to help American workers and unions, their move has generated huge resentment and anger among other labor leaders. While Mr. Stern says he is charting a much-needed, more aggressive course for labor, other union leaders accuse him of a power grab and fault him for repeatedly rejecting Mr. Sweeney's offers of compromise.

---

http://tinyurl.com/donrb

Labour - here and in the States - needs a major shake-up. Too many fat cats, too many vested interests, too little focus. I'm not convinced that Stern's strategy is the be-all and end-all but it is better than the status quo.

As for the effect it might have on the Democrats I think Stern and Hoffa are ambivalent - for different reasons. Stern - remember - mumbled that the Democrats might be better off if Kerry loses during the last campaign. Unlike many on the US Left he's refused to chant the mantra of "Democrats right or wrong!" Hoffa, on the other hand, is just a dick.

Should they have stormed out? I'm not convinced. Unless there's a real plan to start a new central body with a focus on organizing - as the workers who started the CIO did 70 years ago - then this really will be a distraction.

quote:

---

The status quo is not working, and that’s why we are here today. To be relevant again in the lives of the great majority of American workers and their families, the American labor movement must focus on rebuilding its strength and power through the organization of millions of unrepresented workers.

The Teamsters are joining this new, historic coalition because it’s time organized labor dealt head on with our crisis. Union membership is at an all-time low and continues to shrink each year. Business as usual – at the AFL-CIO and in our own unions – will not reverse this decline. The Change to Win Coalition believes that labor can grow if we properly deploy and leverage our existing resources and focus clearly on empowering workers.

We have seen the decline of organized labor through both Republican and Democratic administrations. We cannot afford to wait for a ripe political climate to rebuild our movement. A political sea change in America will not take place until we rebuild our movement.

Workers in America are struggling to maintain their basic standard of living against an onslaught of enemies: corporate greed, globalization, and politicians bought and paid for by multinational conglomerates. The jobs of middle-class Americans are being sold to the lowest bidder. Pensions and health care are considered luxuries.

Union membership is the path to a better life, and our coalition will work day and night to ensure that American workers have access to the American Dream once again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:

There was something a little, um, what is the word I'm looking for ... about him in that profile.

---

Here is a link to the article you were talking about, though:

I don't know. I was obviously being led by the nose by Bai; who knows what the guy is really like?

But Stern came across as a bit slick. There was a ... marketing aura to the whole thing. And I guess that is now necessary.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Clearly with a membership at less than 10% of the private sector, one thing US unions really need to do is "sell themselves" better than they have been.

[ 26 July 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

Actually I was pretty much on-side with Stern (maybe not entirely surprising since I work for his union) except for the occasional - well, to use skdadl's comment, "what's the word?" - moments, like "inspirational comments from Stern on the flat-screen TV at union headquarters".

But at the end of the day I tend to agree with robbie: American unions (and, I'd suggest, Canadian unions too) need to adapt and to become more media savvy - even to the extent of better "marketing".

I doubt sectoral representation is going to happen easily here in Canada - each union's going to jealously guard its turf - but I think in overall approach Stern's message is necessary and timely.

EDIT: All of which doesn't mean Stern's necessarily correct, but I am hopeful it will spark a serious discussion about the future of American (and Canadian) labour.

[ 26 July 2005: Message edited by: Erstwhile ]

[ 27 July 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

Mike Martin, "US Unions Battle, But Dissention Within AFL-CIO Will Have Few Implications for Canadian Unions," Straight Goods 07/24/05

quote:

---

As Canadian trade unionists watch this debate/struggle/revolution unfold in the United States, many are wondering whether acid rain from the AFL-CIO fires will drift across the border. So far the struggle seems to have had little impact. But just as everything American affects our lives, this too will have some impact on Canadian workers and the unions that represent them.

That impact will be muted for a number of political and historic reasons. First of all the Canadian labour movement is a distinct political, social and cultural entity that draws little of its past and less of its future from the American movement. It is true that all of the unions in the dissident camp have significant members in Canada, as do many others, like the Steelworkers for example. But almost all of these International unions operating in Canada have become nationalized entities in the past 30 or 40 years. All have political and financial autonomy from their International bodies.

Secondly, the Canadian labour movement is more committed (than US unions are) to staying together and fighting its battles in-house than in breaking away to start new organizations. In fact the experience of the Canadian Labour Congress over the past 20 years has been to attract new affiliates from health, education and other sectors.
***
Some of the Canadian unions are bitter rivals. Some of the leaders hate each other. But they dislike each other like family. And at the end of the day, you don't change your family. If there is going to be reform or change in the Canadian labour movement, and God knows there needs to be, it will not come as a result of an American decision or an American debate, or even worse a recommendation from an American trade union leader. It will come based on Canadian needs and the Canadian reality. And knowing the Canadian trade union movement it will not be happening any time soon.

---

Mike Martin left out the fact that, while unions on both sides of the AFL-CIO debate do still have significant members in Canada, even together they are still a minority of the national labour movement. I believe that its only about 30% of Canadian unionists who belong to international unions today, the other 70% belong to national unions like CAW, CEP, CUPE, NUPGE, PSAC and the CSN unions in Quebec. I expect the debate in the US means little to these unions. Although maybe that's a mistake? Canadian and U.S. unions often face the same corporate enemies, whether its Walmart or Sodexho Marriott. And these global companies are increasingly applying the same anti-union philosophy and tactics in places like Canada, that they have pioneered in the U.S.A.

I see the debate around organizing spilling over into raiding. I see from above, and I've heard from other sources, that SEIU does not raid, and is busy organizing the unorganized - which is exactly what we want. I see a possibility of the CAW and other unions, such as AUPE, who don't mind raiding (all in the name of worker democracy don't you know) again breaking away from the CLC and forming their own organization. This has the potential for doing immense damage to the labour movement - spending way too much resources fighting amongst ourselves rather than organizing the unorganized, working to change our crappy labour laws, getting safer workplaces etc. The scencario I painted above is somewhat how things are in Alberta right now, and it sucks. I hope it doesn't spread throughout Canada.

Edited for typos, etc.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Nam ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
I thought this article might be worth adding to the mix:

Mike Martin left out the fact that, while unions on both sides of the AFL-CIO debate do still have significant members in Canada, even together they are still a minority of the national labour movement. I believe that its only about 30% of Canadian unionists who belong to international unions today, the other 70% belong to national unions like CAW, CEP, CUPE, NUPGE, PSAC and the CSN unions in Quebec. I expect the debate in the US means little to these unions. Although maybe that's a mistake? Canadian and U.S. unions often face the same corporate enemies, whether its Walmart or Sodexho Marriott. And these global companies are increasingly applying the same anti-union philosophy and tactics in places like Canada, that they have pioneered in the U.S.A.

What do you all think?

---

1) Union density is declining. Between 1997 and 2002 the private sector created 1.3 million jobs, but only 88,000 were added to private-sector union membership. Both Ontario and B.C., with half of Canada’s workforce, have had significant declines in union density since 1997. What has kept our overall density at the level we do have is the unionization rate in the public sector. While public-sector density remained roughly constant, private-sector density declined (from 19.4 to 17.4 per cent)and now, due to privatization and government legislation, there are also significant threats to the public-sector unionization rate, as well.

2) Unions are not focussing on areas of strength and are competing for new workers. The Steelworkers biggest organizing coup of the last decade was cerifying professionals at the UofT and merging with the IWA - putting them in competition with CEP. The CAW is organizing Starbucks and raiding the SEIU and OPSEU for health care workers. The CLC does little about this and when they do take action it becomes clear what a paper tiger they are.

quote:

---

The Steelworkers biggest organizing coup of the last decade was cerifying professionals at the UofT and merging with the IWA - putting them in competition with CEP.

---

Well, the USW-IWA merger makes a little bit more sense when you consider that the USW has also recently merged with a large US-based wood workers union, PACE. Today the largest single corporation that the USW bargains with is no longer US Steel, its Weyerhauser. I think one can make a fair argument that the forestry industry shares a continental market in the same way the steel industry does, and it benefits workers to have a continental union movement that can exert political and economic power on both sides of the Canada/US border. I hope that this also means the USW and CEP will be able to work together on coordinated bargaining and organizing, rather than competing. I fear that if they do compete, the fault line may be on an international vs. national union basis, which also reared its head during the CAW/SEIU dispute.

I agree that the affiliation between the USW and university support workers at UofT and Guelph University makes a lot less sense from an "industry coordination" perspective, which is something the SEIU alliance emphasized in its proposals for the USA. But we should also remember that both UofT and Guelph had preexisting staff organizations which interviewed several unions before democratically deciding to join the USW. I don't know what factors led them to their decision, but it seems clear the workers themselves put some thought into it, which deserves respect.

At the same time, I agree with your general point that Canadian unions seem to be spending far more time chasing hot shops and poaching each others turf, rather than working together and thinking strategically. Which is precisely the same critique the SEIU and its allies levelled against the AFL-CIO unions. Canadian unions appear to be in better shape, but if you don't start thinking ahead to what the future might hold, everything you've gained can slip away just as quickly as it did here. The private sector organizing numbers you have cited are quite discouraging.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

WASHINGTON - The United Food and Commercial Workers, with almost 1.4 million members, will join the Teamsters and the service workers in bolting the AFL-CIO, union leaders said Friday.

The departure of the UFCW from the labor federation means the AFL-CIO is losing at least three of it biggest unions, with more than 4 million of its 13 million members and almost $28 million of an estimated $120 million budget.

"The world has changed and workers' rights and living standards are under attack. Tradition and past success are not sufficient to meet the new challenges," UFCW President Joe Hansen said in a letter delivered to federation President John Sweeney.

Earlier this week, the 1.4-million-member UFCW joined the Teamsters, Service Employees International Union and Unite Here, a group of textile, restaurant and hotel employees, in boycotting the AFL-CIO convention. The Teamsters and service workers announced at the time they were leaving the AFL-CIO. Unite Here is still considering its next step.

---

quote:

---

The question the dramatic rupture raises is whether the dissidents have a better way than their foes to reverse the decades-long slide that has cut union rolls to just 12.5% of the U.S. workforce. SEIU President Andrew L. Stern and his compatriots think they do. Most manufacturing unions, such as those in autos and steel, have no real plans for coping with globalization. Advantage one for Stern & Co.: Most of the dissident unions operate primarily in services -- the 70% or so of the economy in which jobs can't easily be sent abroad.

Within this world, opportunities for organizing are plentiful. Stern's goal is to focus on the fast-growing, low-wage service jobs that are filled by the bulk of the country's working poor. If labor can recruit enough of these workers, it could lift their wages and benefits in much the way unions brought factory workers into the middle class in the 1930s. To do so, Stern argues that labor needs to merge into a dozen or so powerhouse unions capable of taking on the giant multinationals that dominate many of these sectors. "We need to set high standards in whole industries," Stern said when he announced the split-up.

He has managed to bulk up the SEIU to 1.8 million members by recruiting just these kinds of employees. So far, though, most of his growth has come from easy-to-enroll public workers, such as home-care employees. It's by no means clear that Stern and the other five dissident unions, all poised to quit the AFL-CIO, can fare better in the private sector.

Still, they aim to try.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
Is SEIU's growth primarily from organizing previously non-unionized workers? Or is it more from raiding? Because if it's primarily from raiding, then I would side more so with the AFL-CIO's position of the movement sticking together. But if it's primarily from organizing non-unionized workers, I'd tend to think that they're in the right to leave the AFL-CIO with their allies since the movement badily needs revitalization.

[ 27 July 2005: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

---

It's mostly from new organizing, but a good chunk of it is from mergers with smaller, independent unions.

They've grown by 900,000 members in the last ten years or so. Pretty darn impressive.

Labour centrals in the developed English-speaking countries tend to be fairly weak anyway...with the real power being in the affiliated unions...with individual unions being pretty much free to pursue whatever agenda they want to.

quote:

---

More attention has been paid to organized labor these past few months than anytime in recent memory. My hunch is that more articles were written about organized labor these past six months-albeit almost all of them about the internal strife--than in the entire past year. Now that the split has taken place and as more unions sort things out, and as the local maneuvering takes place about how to maintain and build some sort of political aliiances, there's no doubt that there will be more articles. But I think that now would be a good time to redirect some of the debate from the internal politics in labor--and the personality politics--and talk about how progressives are going to assist organized labor in rebuilding itself.

There are myriad reasons for labor's weakness, and many of these reasons have been cited here and elsewhere. But one of the reasons that is rarely discussed is that many in the non-union portion of the liberal left decided years ago to simply give up on organized labor. Union issues became unfashionable. The farmworkers struggle led by Cesar Chavez may have been the last time that non-unionists listened to a plea to support workers. Remember the days when no liberal/left event would include green grapes on the cocktail trays? In recent memory, the anti-sweatshop campaign gained some similar traction, largely due to the effort of creative students who took up the cause. But the fact is that in progressive circles, where it's considered unacceptable to be racist, homophobic,anti-environment or anti-feminist, it's been okay to cross picket lines, look down on service and blue collar workers, and frequent anti-union businesses and purchase anti-union goods. It's been okay to embrace anti-union employers who appear hip through their own marketing maneuvers. It's been okay to be hip by being anti-union. No matter that the majority of workers who are being exploited by non-union workplaces are women and people of color. Polite progressives haven't demanded that attitudes change regarding the right to unionize, which is after all simply the right to build power among the powerless.

It wasn't always like this. In labor's hey day, progressives were with organized labor in all its struggles. Sure, labor has changed. Work has changed. The world has changed. But if organized labor is ever going to rebuild itself, no matter how many labor federations there are, no matter how many faction fights there are, there is going to have to be a move among non-union progressives to embrace the right to organize and the right to defend workers issues in the workplace through unionization.

---

Read the rest.

[ 04 August 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:
I'm not sure what the split from the AFL-CIO will accomplish in terms of organizing new workers.

Labour centrals in the developed English-speaking countries tend to be fairly weak anyway...with the real power being in the affiliated unions...with individual unions being pretty much free to pursue whatever agenda they want to.

It seems to me that SEIU and the other unions can pursue whatever organizing strategy they want and remain inside the AFL-CIO...but hey...I would be perfectly happy to be proven wrong.

---

The problem is that the overall inertia of the labour movement is diluting the power of all workers. The split is about building strength for working people across the board, unionized and non-unionized.

The only reason we have any labour laws in either Canada or the US is becuase unions raised the bar. As it stands now, we do not have enough power to stop the bar from being lowered.

The major split with the AFL-CIO was driven by a fundamental, two-fold difference in how labour would regain power for workers.

Sweeny, AFSME and company think the solution is to do more of the same, which is trying to leverage support for politicians (which has not worked considering the hostile political climate towards unions, especially in the U.S.).

Stern and company believe the way to do it is organize like never before. But he isn't just talk: Stern has the numbers to back up his position. SEIU has grown by over 900,000 members since he took over as President, nearly doubling the size of the union in 9 years. SEIU is now the largest and fastest-growing union in North America.

The other core belief for Stern and the Change to Win partners is that unions should represent industries, rather than a hodge-podge of members. For example, UFCW's and Wal-Mart. Several unions in the coalition have financially supported that drive, recognizing that Wal-Mart is such a powerful force that it is bringing down the wages of all workers (or at least adversely affecting the ability of workers to improve their standard of living). Stern and the others felt the 60+ unions in the AFL should be reduced to 20 covering key industries. SEIU doesn't organize retail, because it doesn't have density in that sector. The retail organizing is up to the UFCW because they have a critical mass of members already, who can influence employers in that sector.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nam:
I think there will be some spillover effect in Canada. A few years ago, Buzz and the CAW got booted from the CLC for raiding - stealing members belonging to another affiliate. They promised not to do it anymore, and were let back in. Alberta Union of Provincial Employees (AUPE) have been booted for about the last four years for the same thing. Dan Maclennan recently spoke at the CAW's national convention, and emphasized "worker democracy", which I interpret as being able to raid anyone's members. Buzz has also spoken in favour of this. Where does all of this leave us, and what effect does events in AFL-CIO have on Canada?

I see the debate around organizing spilling over into raiding. I see from above, and I've heard from other sources, that SEIU does not raid, and is busy organizing the unorganized - which is exactly what we want. I see a possibility of the CAW and other unions, such as AUPE, who don't mind raiding (all in the name of worker democracy don't you know) again breaking away from the CLC and forming their own organization. This has the potential for doing immense damage to the labour movement - spending way too much resources fighting amongst ourselves rather than organizing the unorganized, working to change our crappy labour laws, getting safer workplaces etc. The scencario I painted above is somewhat how things are in Alberta right now, and it sucks. I hope it doesn't spread throughout Canada.

Edited for typos, etc.

[ 28 July 2005: Message edited by: Nam ]

---

Yes, that was SEIU that the CAW raided.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
I thought this article might be worth adding to the mix:

Mike Martin, "US Unions Battle, But Dissention Within AFL-CIO Will Have Few Implications for Canadian Unions," Straight Goods 07/24/05

Mike Martin left out the fact that, while unions on both sides of the AFL-CIO debate do still have significant members in Canada, even together they are still a minority of the national labour movement. I believe that its only about 30% of Canadian unionists who belong to international unions today, the other 70% belong to national unions like CAW, CEP, CUPE, NUPGE, PSAC and the CSN unions in Quebec. I expect the debate in the US means little to these unions. Although maybe that's a mistake? Canadian and U.S. unions often face the same corporate enemies, whether its Walmart or Sodexho Marriott. And these global companies are increasingly applying the same anti-union philosophy and tactics in places like Canada, that they have pioneered in the U.S.A.

What do you all think?

---

quote:

---

hen you have industry strength and links with unions around the world representing workers at the same company, one has a significant bit of leverage to protect workers rights and improve their living standards. Otherwise, it's just divide and conquer.

---

Do you think the SEIU is going to be successful at building links with other unions in Canada, or is it going to get caught in a lot of jurisdictional squabbles like what appears to be happening in the Niagara Health System?

[ 05 August 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

by Brendan Coyne

Aug 5 - In a sign that a newly-formed coalition of organized labor groups may be ready to co-ordinate efforts to bring more workers into the labor movement, five unions announced that they would do "whatever it takes" to support another union’s efforts to organize janitors employed by the nation’s largest cleaning company.

Friday, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) announced that five member groups of the recently-formed Change to Win Coalition had pledged to support its ongoing organizing campaign against ABM Industries with people, resources "and any other assistance that may be necessary."

The unions, Unite Here, the Teamsters, United Food and Commercial workers, United Farm Workers and the Laborers, formed CTW as an effort to organize and mobilize workers in the US in June. SEIU, the Teamsters and UFCW left the AFL-CIO last week.

ABM Industries, which provides janitorial, parking, engineering, security and other services to companies nationwide, employs over 73,000 people and took in over $2.4 billion last year, according to company information. Over half of the company’s workforce belongs to a union, ABM noted in a statement.

But according to news reports and the SEIU, unionized workers make substantially more than their non-unionized counterparts. Janitors in Houston, for instance, make little more than $5 an hour, and in Indianapolis they receive only about $7 an hour on average, the Daily Texan reported.

By comparison, the company pays its unionized janitors between $10 and $20 an hour and provides them with health benefits, according to SEIU.

ABM janitors in Houston and Indianapolis have been struggling for two years to organize a union. Near the end of July, the janitors walked off the job in both cities to protest what they claim were unfair labor practices by ABM, including harassing workers and threatening them with the loss of their jobs, SEIU said.

Employees of ABM in other cities quickly pledged to support the picketing workers, engaging in a one-day walkout three days after the strikes began, according to the Sacramento Bee.

The janitors returned to work ten days after the strike began, when ABM and SEIU agreed to terms that include the company agreeing to reinstate a fired worker and the union dropping a complaint filed with the National Labor Relations Board, the Houston Chronicle reported last Thursday.

According to statements from both sides, differences between the two have not been resolved.