Farmworkers Joining Change to Win
I have to agree with Nathan-the Farmworkers joining with the dissident unions is a big deal symbolically and operationally. The Farmerworkers have always symbolized the best of what labor can do--to the outside world-and the fight for non-union members supporting labor today is a big part of the fight.
Labor needs to regain the sense that it's fighting for those most in need in society. Without public support there's no way for labor to change the draconian labor laws in the country today. there once was a time when no self-respecting liberal or progressive would eat grapes unless Cesar Chavez said it was okay. And the labor movement was seen as something almost holy precisely because it was fighting on behalf of farmworkers. Yet today, liberals make all sorts of excuses not to support workers' struggles. And, there aren't enough public presentations of workers who are sympathetic in the public's mind. Organized labor has to engage the public imagination again . If the internal struggle disappears from the headlines after the end of the Chicago Convention, then the dissident unions' efforts will have failed. Labor's message--once it's unwrapped and presented--needs to be out there all the time.
When the UFW endorsed the Sweeney/Trumka/Chavez-Thompson team ten years ago, I think that we described them as the "moral center" of the labor movement, or something like that.
From George Meany on, the UFW has always been organized labor's poster child: living proof that unions are fighting to win social justice for the most exploited (whether that does anything to inspire highly skilled skill technical and professional workers to organize is another conversation).
Symbolism aside, what I find particularly ironic about the UFW endorsing the Change to Win Coalition is that, from my reading of the coalition's platform, the UFW is just the kind of union they believe ought to be merged into a larger organization. According to Change to Win:
"The AFL-CIO should play an active and direct role in working with affiliated unions to facilitate mergers – subject to approval by the affected members — that lead to increased power for workers in the same or complimentary industries. A proactive, industry-based merger policy – whose goal is to build worker bargaining power — will give workers the chance to unite their strength before overwhelming economic and political forces have weakened their unions to the point that it may be too late for mergers to make much difference."
Given the relatively modest size of the UFW (unless I'm mistaken their membership is less than 30,000) it would seem that, under the Change to Win approach, the AFL-CIO would be doing what it could to promote a UFW merger with, say, UFCW.
In his comments, Artie Rodriguez said: "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." Fair enough, but what I want to know if that includes the formation of one large union responsible agriculture and the food industry (something that would require merging BCTGM with UFCW, too). Maybe that would be a good thing, maybe not. In any case it's not unfair to ask if that is what the Farm Workers are now advocating.
July 23, 2005 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The UFCW has already undertaken the cause of representing agricultural workers in Canada and hired on the United Farm Workers' former Canadian staff after UFW pulled out of Ontario in the mid-1990s.
More info: UFCW Canada Rights for Ag Workers Campaign .
I think some kind of affiliation between the Farm Workers and the UFCW (although maybe not a merger) would probably be a sensible idea. I previously argued for this on the Unite To Win blog.
July 23, 2005 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink