Not Such a Big Deal
Maybe I'm a little jaded, since I've been expecting something like this break for the last couple of years, at least since SEIU's white paper by Steven Lerner was leaked to LaborNotes and then the formation of the original New Unity Partnership.
In a contrarian mood, I think people are making too much of the "split" in the labor movement, as if labor hasn't continually been in internal tussles between unions, whether they were in or out of the same labor federation.
Yes, a few unions won't be paying dues to the AFL-CIO.
And as for fears this will disrupt unity in political operations among unions, there has never been coordination except when individual unions want there to be.
And as for fears this will disrupt unity in political operations among unions, there has never been coordination except when individual unions want there to be.
In New York, for example, in the last governors race, you had a bunch of unions off supporting George Pataki, while another group was off supporting the Democratic challenger on a third party Working Families Party line-- hell you had one SEIU local supporting Pataki and another SEIU local supporting the Democrat, so it's not like any union always enforces lockstep coordination even within its own union.
I suspect that if Central Labor Councils don't let the Change to Win folks sit at the table officially, you'll see a lot of cities where new labor-backed non-profits pop up to coordinate a range of different labor efforts. Some of them are already in place to help unions better coordinate with community groups, so there's no reason they won't also help unions in and out of the AFL-CIO coordinate when they want to.
In the end, the effects of the disaffiliations will be that we'll see some experiments, probably now in both the remaining AFL-CIO unions as well as in CtW, on different organizing strategies. There may be some gains from some healthy competition and maybe some losses from repetition and wasted resources, but this is not some epic divide in the labor movement, like the old AFL v. Knights of Labor, AFL v. IWW, or AFL v. CIO fights.
This will be something a bit different. I'm not sure what yet, but people who criticize it for lacking the drama and vision of past splits are probably right. But if it yields some real coordination among the CtW unions on some serious organizing drives against Wal-Mart or some other global companies, then the move to withdraw their money from the AFL-CIO to concentrate it on those drives may be worthwhile.
I mean, I'd love to see the Wobblies rise again, but then the old IWW didn't survive as a major force that long. So I'm willing to see if this new, slightly less bombastic approach can succeed.
Advertisement
I think it is a Big Deal.
These are some of the largest unions in the federation, they have money, they have seen success in organizing over the past few years where others have continued to attrit- losing them isn't something that can be shrugged off. If it was, then federation leadership wouldn't be so openly hostile to the CtW (for instance, Chavez-Thompson's inclusion of CtW with the Bushies in her speech at the convention as a labor obstacle).
Will the end result be positive? I think it will. The rhetoric surrounding the split is logical, labor is on the wrong track and perhaps this action will right the boat. There are plenty of possible outcomes, the most promising being the increase in funds spent on organizing and testing new models of organizing. Perhaps even having two national labor organizations in conflict could increase labors profile nationally and get people involved.
As for the Wobblies "rising again"- no way.
July 26, 2005 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I mentioned at <a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/facingsouth">Fa cing South</a>, I think this is a big deal, especially for the South. Bill Fletcher alludes to this in his post: the lack of coordination -- among resources, people, organizations, etc. -- will definitely wreak the most havoc where labor is weak. Sure, some innovative and enthusiastic drives will launch here and there. But the sense of confusion and lack of a unified strategy will hurt places like nascent efforts to organize in the South. I'm not necessarily opposed to what has happened, and I count myself as one of many progressives in labor's orbit who believed that "something needed to be done." But I don't think we can deny the innevitable short- and long-term consequences. None of us has a crystal ball, and I think bold pronouncements one way or another are unwise at the moment. But given the realities on the ground, some of the consequences are clear.
July 26, 2005 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, AMFA left the IAM a few years back and signed a record contract. Now they are facing a stiff challenge from NWA, but I think they'll come out ok.
There is a great article on a modern day labor hero. Ted Ludwig of AMFA Local 33 has risked his job and livelihood to expose the threat of aircraft maintenance outsourcing to the commercial aviation industry.
I don't think the AFL-CIO would have been responsive enough to the needs of aircraft mechanics.
This article on Ludwig was posted in the Minneapolis Star Tribune today.
Also, AMFA has put together a very informative website on aviation outsourcing.
July 26, 2005 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a huge supporter of labor and absolute believer in the not just the value but the necessity of unions, I would hope that this split could be good for labor.
The union heads, just like the head of any organization (be it corporate, political party, or "interest group") is primarily concerned with their own well-being and rewards and has as a secondary concern the interest of their members.
Perhaps a little competition for union dues will bring the Union leaders back to the purpose of fighting for their member’s interests. Of course, if I see the SEIU throw it's support behind a prescription drug benefit that only benefits the drug companies I will be eating my words with a big helping humbling.
July 26, 2005 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 26, 2005 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
SEIU and HERE are two of the toughest and best organizing unions there are. But I don't know if the others can be called more successful than AFSCME, AFT or CWA. IBT's growth has come from mergers and raids on independents as much as anything else.
I wonder what we will mean when we say "independents" now? (For the uninitiatied, an independent was, until this past weekend, a union that is not part of AFL-CIO. NEA is the largest independent. AFL-CIO unions traditionally thouht that raids on independents were a justifiable practice since the goal was to force an election that would give people a chance to become part of a broader labor movement.)
July 26, 2005 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nathan, I presume you were joking about the Wobblies rising again?
July 26, 2005 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
>> Nathan, I presume you were joking about the Wobblies rising again?
The IWW is organizing again, and gaining members. There are branches throughout the USA, Canada, England, Australia, and a number of other countries around the world.
As for "rising", well, time will tell.
best wishes,
richard myers, IWW member
rtmyers@h2net.net
http://www.rebelgraphics.org
July 26, 2005 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe this split will not be important from a parochial union point of view. But it has the potential of being of outstanding importance to all people who work for a living.
Forget about the politics vs. organizing argument. Unions, or something like unions, are needed by all people who work for a living. Recently, employees have been marginalized by business. You have many part-timers and temporaries. Wages have been flat. Employers are reducing health and pension benefits. They merge and then fire many at will. Jobs, many at high levels, are being outsourced to other countries.
These trends will continue. The average worker, whether he be unskilled, skilled, professional, or even supervisory, is under increasing stress. Companies are taking advantage of employee distress to make matters still worse for employees.
An organization is needed to fight for the rights of employees as opposed to the rights of business. There is no other way.
I don't know if Stern plans to build such an all-encompassing organization of employees. However, this is what needs to be done. At least Stern is shaking things up and causing people to come up with new ideas.
July 27, 2005 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully the split will lead to a great debate and a new (effective) strategy for the labor movement as a whole, but in my mind, this may highlight the differences while making little substantive change to the movement in the very short term.
Best regards, Katya, CEO of facebook, iscsi virtual machine
March 11, 2011 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink