Construction Unions May Build Alternative Federation
With the departure of key unions from the AFL-CIO like the Teamsters and the Carpenters (and potentially the Laborers), building trades unions face a dilemma since internal AFL-CIO structures have traditionally negotiated allocation of jobs on building sites and negotiated jointly with employers.
John Sweeney has banned the building trades from allowing the Carpenters or other non-AFL unions from working within the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department, but this may be just a recipe for further eroding AFL-CIO authority. Major construction unions are already discussing creating an alternative federation outside the AFL-CIO structure. As today's BNA Daily Labor Report details (subscription required):
That alternative organization to BCTD -- tentatively named the National Construction Alliance -- is ready and available for implementation, according to union sources familiar with these negotiations.As unions are barred from local Central Labor Councils, the creation of local alternative structures to encourage unity is likely to proceed apace as well.As explained by these sources, the new group essentially would be an expanded version of the National Heavy & Highway Alliance.
Membership in this new organization "may be by invitation only," one union source said, and "could require a hefty initiation fee."
The choice for building trades unions between remaining affiliated with BCTD and meeting contract obligations to union contractors, especially those working on projects for major corporate owners, will be difficult. There was little disagreement among several trade union officials contacted by BNA that an independent version of the building trades department would be a viable alternative to remaining in a fractured BCTD.
One union official predicted that the BCTD convention will be followed by a post-convention meeting of dominant building trades unions to decide whether or not to go ahead with creation of the independent group.
You have to wonder what is Sweeney's strategy in banning all participation of non-AFL unions in bodies controlled by the AFL-CIO, since the end result is likely to accellerate the disintegration of all these local and industry-specific structures to the point that the AFL-CIO ends up with almost zero leverage over any of its constituent unions. Anyone have a good answer?
knowing only what i've read here, tasini's working life, and some newspaper articles, it looks like sweeny's anger about the AFL-CIO's disintegraton is expressing itself in a lashing out that is only accelarating the organization's death spiral. i read that linda chavez thompson likened the participation of non-affiliated unions in AFL-CIO structures to the open shop - which is a silly comparison since the unions are more that willing to pay the per capita and finanicially support the organizations - and this may be reflective of the overall feeling that the federation needs to raise its walls and protect itself from the barbarians that are clammering at the gate. on the whole it seems highly counterproductive and in some respects goes against the grain of the most innovative work (by the south bay labor [SF bay area] council, for example) that actually seeks to represent workers who aren't in unions.
al
August 4, 2005 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Al
There has been a lot of unfortunate rhetoric from both camps here. But I do believe that the open shop is half right. If you are in the AFL-CIO as the rules stand now you get to choose to participate in a CLC. But you have to be affiliated nationally to do so.
I'm betting that if a local tries to affiliate with the AFL-CIO in total that it will be received at all levels. If that imposes a new cost on them, perhaps they can askfor a rebate from their national union, which should be flush with cash thanks to disafiliation. Or it could affiliate with a union that is part of the AFL-CIO.
This last sentence is somewhat facetious. But Al, really, I don't understand how this issue can be separated from the raiding issue. If, as it seems, SEIU is raiding AFSCME, then there is little chance that anyhting can be done to give SEIU locals an accomodation in AFL-CIO.
August 4, 2005 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If unions are willing and able and eager to work together on the ground on projects -- and are willing to pay their fair share to those local bodies to do so -- then i don't see why national edicts (especially seemingly counterproductive ones that have an appearance of vindictivness) should prevent them from doing so.
when we're divided in as many ways as we are, shouldnt we foster any opportunity to be united?
August 5, 2005 4:18 AM | Reply | Permalink