Butch Sweeney and Sundance Andy
The turmoil at the AFL-CIO that Mark discussed is a train wreck that has seemed unavoidable for years. Back in 1998 and 1999, The Century Foundation organized a task force on the future of unions, which comprised 17 wise and knowledgeable men and women – all of whom were sympathetic to labor. Trying to get them to reach a consensus about what the federation’s leadership should do was like gaining approval for the European Union’s constitution.
The only statement that everyone agreed to provided evidence that unions in the past had produced economic gains even for non-union members, and that declining unionization had something to do with stagnating wage growth and other economic and social problems. But the question of what labor should do to revitalize itself divided the group into four factions – five if you count the members who didn’t endorse any particular course of action. The tensions on that task force were along the same fault lines that have become deeper as union density levels have further fallen along with political support for labor. The biggest issue then, and now, is how much weight to give to organizing versus political efforts. And the degree to which the federation should focus on trade-related issues remains a huge source of conflict.
That said, the current standoff between John Sweeney and Andy Stern reminds me of the last scene of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Everyone’s attention is focused on the two guys in the cave, but the ultimate outcome will be decided by the hundreds of rifles trained on them when they emerge. Labor laws are a joke, and so is the enforcement of them. The failure of the Dunlop Commission in 1994 was the last best chance to make any progress on that front. Even with more effective laws, the ability of employers in all but a relatively small number of industries to outsource jobs to non-unionized workers in other countries and in the U.S. fundamentally undercuts the circumstances that enabled the old model to function better.
Mark is right that a lot of interesting and effective locally grown alternatives to the traditional labor movement are having an impact in a variety of ways. (Amy Dean, the founder of Working Partnerships USA, is writing a book for The Century Foundation about the subject). But it will be years before those kinds of efforts will coalesce into some kind of force that can exert clout nationally.
Is there any silver lining to the situation? I can’t really think of any. But the further weakening and fractiousness of the labor movement only underlines the need for action at the federal level to extend health insurance to everyone, improve the retirement security of the workforce, and pursue economic policies that boost incomes. The days when collective bargaining agreements produced those benefits for a large share of the American workforce don’t seem likely to come back.
Comments (11)
The Democratic Party and its pundits should not use labor's disorganization as an excuse not to advocate affordable health insurance and a living wage for America's blue, pink and white collar workers. The 2004 campaign indicates that internet fundraising could replace the resulting loss in corporate support
June 2, 2005 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Labor's day has passed. Minimum wage, child labor laws, OSHA. All great things realized because of the unions. However, none of these are seriously threatened now. It is time for the Dems to realize the only use for labor now is PAC contributions. The party needs to stop holding onto old ideas and old centers of power (BTW - fire the Dem campaign consultants also. Bob Shrum should never get another dollar from any Dem friendly group. ever.) and start modernizing the party around grassroots and technological efforts not focused on a dying dinosaur.
June 2, 2005 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
If workers aren't mobilized by labor unions to advocate for change in, say, health care or family leave, nobody will. Labor unions are vital to the progressive movement because they're the natural constituency for a lot of the policies we want to implement. Without labor, nobody has any incentive to work for our priorities. It's great for people like the first commenter to talk about how Dems need to advocate for things, but without labor pushing things onto the agenda, workers will tend to languish.
June 2, 2005 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
There does need to be a push, but relying on labor is only going to hurt the party. New worker/progressive advocacy groups (probably revolving around the internet) are needed to take its place. Sure it would be nice if labor still had the clout, but it is a dying institution and the Party does not need to sink into the abyss along with organized labor (they've been slipping consistently for 30 years).
June 2, 2005 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that was depressing.
June 2, 2005 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously have bought into the corporate media's paradigm that labor is unnecessary; a myth that is shown to be fallacious with every Wal-Mart that opens, with every pension plan terminated, with every employee fired for no reason at all. Labor has never been more necessary. The Pinkertons may no longer shoot strikers, but the bullets find there mark from the rarified heights of the judiciary which is packed with corporate lawyers who spent their legal careers paving the way for the unimpeded movement of capital. Who appoints federal judges? The politicians bought and paid for by the corporations who buy access to block labor law reform. An alienated workforce cutoff from each other and with no voice at work votes for these idiots because the democrats do want to offend their corporate paymasters. Only a vital labor movement that gives voice to real economic issues affecting everyone can motivated voters to vote their intersts, not their fears. And which forces those few brave democrats to stand for working people.
l
uern org
aefnwd d
e they fill the vacum left by democrats who are afrain aunono
igisirfire
p
June 2, 2005 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the current split is revealing in that as I have said elswhere, most labor leaders are only interested in maintaing their status, sadly not even the status quo.
What appears to be a fight over organizing vs politics and legislation is really mixing with the "great unwashed" (organizing) vs mixing with politicians, lobbyists and donors. Once you have made it off the assembly line, the shop or the workplace and to the heady areas of Washington DC, the prospects for a return to the shop are revolting. Revolting enough to do damn near anything to not go back. This is just one of the institutional problems with Labor. Personally after a lifetime devoted to labor, I am for tearing down its current institutions.
I agree with Stern on most of his criticisms of the current structure of labor. I just don't think he is the personality to bring about change. I also think there needs to be some study to the Australian model of labor, going by physical geographic organizing. In a service economy this might work better.
The inability of labor folks at the conference to agree on much is emblimatic of the selfishness of labor leadership. They will not talk about the elephants in the room.
For example, the decline in labor is closely timed with the massive enterence of women into the workforce. Coincidence? Nope, doubling the labor supply cut heavily into the ability to demand higher wages. The bunch of florid white guys running things then also did little to appeal to and organize these new workers. The decline in wages of unionized workers vs unorganized greatly damaged labors appeal.
There are lots of other 500lb gorrillas labor won't even discuss, and that is a big part of why.
When you hear a kid whistling a Joe glazer type tune going down the street, you know labor is coming back, don't hold your breath.
June 2, 2005 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You will feel much more positive about the future of organizing labor. Acuff (organizing chair of AFL-CIO) had everyone on their feet with his invigorating, Democratic principle-laden speech. Please catch it or get the transcript if you can.
If anyone can make a difference this guy looks like he's up to the job.
June 2, 2005 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. What's in it for me? I think that's what most are asking. I've seen polls showing the biggest problem Unions have is they only represent their workers, and not the labor force at large.
We've got some reported strikes happening with airlines, and the teachers are demanding more money, and the UAW is in talks with GM and Ford.
But hardly any of this matters to me.
There are things that I'd love to see done to improve our job market. I'd like to be able to select someone to manage my 401k outside of my employer. Or I'd at least like to be able to take money out and move it to an IRA managed fund without having to quit my job. Similarly with health care. If my Dentist only takes X Dental plan, and my company moves to Y... why should I have to switch dentists? I ought to be able to keep X.
There's all kinds of things out there that can be done which would gain a good amount of support amongst the populace if advocated for, and they effect millions of real people working for a living.
But because the Unions are still stuck back in the 1950s and don't understand a mobile labor force, job training, or even retirement plans(pension? What's that? Does anybody still do that today?) they don't discuss them.
Unions are a hasbeen, by their own choice...
June 2, 2005 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a real optimist if you think OSHA and the minimum wage aren't under threat. The threat to OSHA is greater but the Republican think tanks all would like to see them as well as the EPA be nothing more than entries in the history books.
June 2, 2005 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
But they still accounted for 26% of the electorate in 2000, and I'd be very surprised if it was much smaller than that in 2004 considering the size of the efforts.. That is no small thing. And to say (not you, but further down the thread) that the problem with Labor is that it only advocates for its own workers and not workers at large is ridiculous. Three major nation-wide campaigns that Labor is conducting right now are: Opposing privatizing social security, opposing CAFTA, and demanding that Wal-Mart provide adequate insurance for their workers (what other group is putting $15 million dollars into reigning in Wal-Mart?). Those are all issues that affect the country as a whole. Labor certainly has its problems, but we shouldn't write it off quite yet.
Carl
June 2, 2005 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink