Northwest--From Another Vantage Point
The Northwest Airlines mechanics strike represents a perilous moment for the labor movement. If AMFA succeeds in this risky venture, it will be only by the skin of its teeth and won’t likely provide any great boon to the fate of workers in the airline industry. But if it fails—oh, if it fails—that’s a sonic boom that will be reverberating for a long time to come.
Any time workers are ready and willing to step up to the plate and take the enormous risks that a strike entails, my first impulse is to cheer them on. But waging a successful strike in today’s economic and political environment can require a strategic plan worthy of Machiavelli and pockets deeper than a pair of cargo pants. I don’t know anything about AMFA’s bank account, but thus far its strategic sense seems to be woefully lacking.
Of course, AMFA was a union born of strategic non-sense. Whether or not its founders’ criticisms of other unions in the airline industry ever had any validity—and I’m dubious that they did--they certainly didn’t rise to a level that justified breaking away to form a small, independent union.
And whether or not AMFA developed into a potent advocate for mechanics--and nothing I’ve ever heard makes me think it did—there still wouldn’t be any justification for the labor wars it sparked by raiding the IAM and the Teamsters, rather than focusing on organizing the nonunion carriers.
And whether or not there’s an argument to be made at this point in history for the value of a one-craft union, there’s not the slightest justification for AMFA’s elitist efforts to distance itself from baggage handlers and maintenance workers.
Now all of the macho bluster that AMFA employed to lure workers away from other unions is proving to be useless coin in the brutal realm of airline industry restructuring. Northwest has rolled out one of the most sophisticated striker replacement game plans ever devised. And suddenly—after all those years of going it alone, and raiding other unions, and dissing other workers--AMFA has discovered solidarity and is sending out an SOS to its fellow airline unions. Understandably, the rescue crews have been slow to respond.
Can we learn anything from this grim tale? I’ve heard some Change to Win partisans rush in to argue that the standoff at Northwest can be blamed on their favorite whipping boy—multiple unions in one industry. Not surprisingly, I draw some different conclusions.
First let me point out the obvious: There used to be one less union in the industry. But then workers got their own ideas and—wrong though they were, in my view—joined up with AMFA to add one more union to the mix. So, apropos our current labor movement battling, this assertion of workers’ wills is a useful reminder that while fewer, bigger (better!) unions would indeed be a good thing, consolidation is not necessarily something that can be decreed from on high (nor, in my view, should it be).
Second, splits—whether large or small—are all too often due not to matters of high principle, but to gritty political infighting—and the inability of the splitters to attain the kind of influence they want through democratic means. Splits born of such small-mindedness seldom produce the glorious results they promise. The one prominent exception to that rule, of course, is the CIO’s departure from the AFL. Those who’ve split from today’s AFL-CIO (note the reunification therein) have tried to claim that particular heritage as their own, but as Jack Metzgar cogently argues in a recent New Labor Forum article, that analogy really doesn’t hold water. For all of our sakes, I’m hoping that the AMFA experience doesn’t prove to be the more apt one.
Third, no good can come of intra-union raiding. I can’t justify the fact that the IAM is purportedly allowing its members to perform struck work at Northwest. But I can understand the fierce bitterness that could produce such a decision. Ever since the airline industry was deregulated, the IAM has struggled valiantly to represent its members in an ever more hostile environment—and to collaborate with other airline unions in that fight. AMFA’s raiding played on workers’ frustrations--knowing full well that it had no better game plan to confront the challenges they faced. Such tactics not only breach solidarity in the moment—but make it very tough to reestablish, no matter how urgent the need.
CtW’s partisans assured us that splitting the AFL-CIO would not much damage solidarity because the departing unions had pledged not to raid other unions. But the door had barely closed behind them when SEIU launched a raid on AFSCME’s largest affiliate in California—costing each union millions of dollars—and bringing not a single new worker into labor’s ranks. As the AMFA experience demonstrates, this kind of behavior leaves deep scars that can hamper labor unity for years to come. In fact, the venomous campaign that SEIU is waging there is already weakening labor’s united front in the all-out assault that Gov. Terminator has launched on unions and the public sector in that state.
Maybe I’m reading too much into the AMFA experience and labor’s larger split will prove much more amenable to the balm of well-intentioned folks looking for ways to work together. And maybe the AMFA mechanics at Northwest will be able to stare down their employer and thwart its strikebreaking master plan. I wouldn’t rule out such happy surprises, but I wouldn’t count on them either.
Advertisement
I've been trying to figure out this charge that IAM is allowing their members to do struck work. Is this referring to isolated incidences like the pilot who supposedly picked up his own plane at the garage rather than wait, or is this a more coordinated thing that NWA is asking people to move around responsibilities and IAM is allowing it? I guess the question is it individual members or the union as a whole.
Carl
August 24, 2005 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Roberta,
I find it a bit ironic that you seem so annoyed by some "Change to Win partisan" saying that the divisions within the Airline industry unions is part of the problem currently facing Northwest and other airline employees and then you immediately jump to making partisan anti CtW analogies that are, in my opinion way more of a stretch.
I could try to make an argument in defense of the situation in California (the local leadership wanted to work closer with SEIU and then AFSCME trusteed them when they finally discovering shocking allegations after how many years, the benefit of all home care workers being in one union, etc.) but I won't. I agree that raidining is bad, and wish that SEIU wasn't doing what it is in California. However, I find your comparison between AMFA and the CtW split way off base, whether you look at the rhetoric or the substance of the split.
AMFA was built by raiding, despite the unfortunate events in CA, it would be more than a stretch to argue that SEIU, UFCW, UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Carpenters, Laborers, and UFW were built on raiding. For all their flaws and failures, these are all unions that have strong histories of organizing millions of workers(collectively if not individually). So we're supposed to believe that unions representing millions of workers deciding to pursue a new strategy (right or wrong) is the same thing as a "labor entrepenuer" carving out a gig for himself at the expense of the broader labor movement. (to paraphrase Tasini
Further, AMFA's rhetoric was based on craft elitism and a go it alone strategy, CtW's is arguning for uniting workers by industry and working together to organize big companies.
As far as the negativity caused by splitting and raiding, it is a bald face lie to assert that this started with the split. It started when AFSCME tried to raid SEIU in Illinois (and don't tell me it wasn't a raid because the workers didn't have a contract. if we want a movement we better start thinking bigger than just contracts) It started when CWA raided HERE in Cali, it started when the Machinists cut a deal with the boss to raid the teamsters in carhaul, etc. I'm sure the CtW unions also did bad things prior to the split. But trying to lay all the blame for the animosity on CtW or SEIU is wrong. If that's the position people take we will never reestablish unity.
August 24, 2005 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's not a font big enough to convey the concept of just plain, UGLY!
I learned a lot about the history of the AMFA from Jonathan Tasini's blog; linked in Nathan Newman's article on the NW strike (thanks Nathan).
Given knowledge of AMFAs behavior since 1962, it's willingness to dump on non-machinist workers, its chauvanistic craft mentality, it's no wonder that the rest of the unions and even rank-and-file members have no desire to support ther AFMA's self-inficted bloodbath.
Nonetheless, I wonder if any lessons are being learned? Will the flight attendants, the pilots, the IAM come to their senses and learn how to work together on an industry basis? Will the AFL-CIO do everything in its power to suggest, force, cajole cooperation and joint strategy in this industry? I hope so, but I don't know.
Us, in the labor movement, need our "Stalingrad" real bad (that is, our Stalingrad from the Soviet point of view). This year's major defeat looks to be the NW strike. Last year's major defeat was the botched UFCW Los Angeles grocery strike. How the CtW is going to organize millions in the labor movement, on top of a 30 year legacy of defeat after defeat after defeat, is beyond me.
Right now, my sense is that the leadership on both sides of the CtW vs AFL-CIO split should be immediately and irrevocably cashiered. Neither side seems to be dealing with the reality of an unrelenting class war. Both sides seem to be governed more by personal hatred and loathing between union presidents than any coherent plan, much less desire, to fight a class war that was picked by the corporations and has been systematically ducked by our unions.
I can't imagine the handwriting on the wall being any clearer. Is this a case of getting the attention ala, slamming the Missouri Mule with a 2' x 4'? I mean, come on, let's show some leadership!
Chuck Wynns
aka Lambchop
August 24, 2005 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Midway! Midway! The analogy you're looking for is "Us in the labor movement need our Midway real bad." No good will come from pining for successes from Soviet days, even if the one to which you refer was a pretty good thing for the US of A.
August 25, 2005 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Midway then, or El Alemein, or the Battle of Britain (I like airplanes though, so Midway, or maybe the Battle of Coral Sea, or B of B are my favorites!).
Seriously however, I'm an internationalist, and while I'm very comfortable with Midway, I think it is essential for us in the labor movement to understand, and be able to act in conjunction with workers all over the world.
A connection for instance might be the TGWU vs Gates Gourmet battle at Heathrow Airport. While the workers are British (actually, largely of Asian background), Gates is a US Texas-owned firm with a not enviable record in our US of A..
KevStar, if you haven't yet, go back to Nathan Newman's article on" leaked memos" and Gates Gourmet (8/22 I believe). There's a link there to the AFL-CIO website, which in turn, is linked to a petition through the British Labour Movement to Gates Gourmet.
I see such actions as the AFL-CIOs link to a Brit fight to be a good start. I think CtW's emphasis on working internationally is real heathy too. Good lord, if our movement doesn't kill us first, maybe there's hope!
August 25, 2005 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not over-dramatize the implications of AMFA's strike against NWA. It's a secondary struggle in a much larger war whose course it will not advance, setback, or determine. One of the sins of the AFL-CIO, according to CtW people and their supporters, is its 57 varieties of unions, many small and nearly impotent. Well, what is AMFA, a union of some 4000+ plus members, which has already vanished from the scene previously without creating a ripple. And let's not misread the implications of the P-9 strike in Austin, MN. In no way does it resemble AMFA's battle with NWA. It involved a major, mass membership union, UFWC, centered in an economic sector undergoing substantial transformation but not in dire economic straits, as is much of the airline industry. In the P-9 case, the disunity resulted not only from differences between what the workers in Austin wanted and the international union leadership preferred but also from deep divisions among the P-9 workers themselves. That is the beauty of Barbara Kopple's wonderful documentary on the P-9 strike, it enables the working people of Austin to express themselves and for the viewers to comprehend why union members split. Cherie Register's equally wonderful memoir, Packinghouse Daughter, a tale of her growing up as the child of a skilled butcher in neighboring Austin Lea, MN, and an active unionist at Wilson, conveys the unreal world inhabited by some Hormel workers. As the meatpacking industry was changing and non-union packers were stealing market share from the large unionized packers, the international union sought to build a common front and to protect the jobs of union workers by enabling unionized companies to compete better with their non-union competitors. The P-9 rebels refused to accept the concessions Hormel sought and the UFC accepted in order to standardize wages and benefits among unionized firms. The P-9 rebels struggled to defend their superior wages and benefits, once a part of Hormel's welfare capitalist compromise with unionism but something the company could no longer afford in a restructured market. Like the AMFA strikers at NWA (who left IAM and joined AMFA in the first place to win higher wages than fellow airline workers), P-9s rebels thought that they could go it alone and protect their privilged position. Scab is perhaps the most bitter epithet in the union lexicon, but many of the "scabs" in the NWA strike are themselves union members (IAM has authorized its members to replace cabin cleaners on strike) and many of the replacement workers may well be unemployed IAM members, victims of the airline industry's labor force retrenchments. It is one thing to strike UPS, a profitable company, quite another to seek to shut down an enterprise in economic difficulty. It is one thing to strike in a relatively tight labor market, quite another to do so in a labor market quite loose even for skilled airplane mechanics. Unless one accepts Peter Rachleff's view that no striker is ever foolish and no union leader who calls his members to the barricades ever does wrong (see his current plea for solidarity in behalf of AMFA at NWA and his former defense of P-9 strikers in Austin). one must use some intelligence and reason before endorsing a strike action. Nathan has pointed out that Southern textiles have gone under competitively even without unions; one might note that if AMFA won at NWA, highly unlikely, and if the airline paid its mechanics more and employed more of them than its competitors, it would likely follow the route of Eastern, Pan American, Braniff, and TWA. This strike will not determine the fate of unionism but its loss will highlight the dangers of sectoral unionism, craft elitism, and disunity in the labor movement. It should serve as a warning notice to the CtW people that perhaps they can accomplish their aims better as a ginger group inside the AFL-CIO rather than challengers outside at a moment unpropiitious for trade unionism.
August 25, 2005 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Mel D,
First of all, the AFMA strike is about as ludicrious an action as one can imagine. No argument here; the AMFA has wrapped itself, indeed seems to have founded itself on the narrowest ideology of craft unionism. That the AFMA is being scabbed by IAM members is no suprise either, given the AFMA's stance that others, such as desk people and baggage handlers should take more cuts to the benefit of the machinists (from Jonathan Tasini's wonderful blog).
The AFMA strike is a disaster. Any labor strategist in her or his right mind would not have called a strike. Indeed, the whole strike reeks of an over-estimation of union power based on a solid foundation of craft arrogance. The whole thing is like reading IWW cartoons from the 1900s around the American Separation of Labor.
Nonetheless, the point I was trying to make in my earlier posts was simply: Are the airline unions going to learn anything from watching the AFMSA disaster?
Look at it this way:
Whether there's 12 unions or 20, unions, overall density is fairly thick in the air travel industry. Unions can decide to continue to narrowly bargain one union at a company at one time. Or, unions can decide to engage in a coordinated strategy around a set of shared objectives... Whatever those objectives might be.
To my mind, if the airline unions can agree on any coordinated industry-wide objectives and strategies, then the lesson from the AFMA disaster has been learned.
The second point I would like to make is this:
Union-dense corporations have often stayed competitive through demanding concessions from their workers, with wage and benefit standards increasingly set by the non-union competitors. However, this varies quite a bit from industry to industry, and a corporation's solution, ala' worker concessions, might or might not have much to do with the firm's competion problems. In a nutshell, a company that manufactures typewriters is going to go belly-up, whether its workers make $20 per hour, or a $1 per hour.
While the major threat to unionized meatpackers might have been from non-union packers (I am avoiding a re-argument over the whole P-9 deal because meat packing is not what's currently on the table, to make a bad pun), the airlines are a bit different. The airlines are in an industry wide crisis, almost across the board.
At this stage of the game, the airlines, through concessionary bargaining and bankruptcy, have decided to solve their problems on their workers' backs. The reason why they choose to solve industry problems on their workers' backs is simply because they can! They've done it before, they're doing it now, and will continue to beat on their workers as long as this strategy is the path of least resistance for these companies.
On the other hand, let's face it, air travel is a necessary industry in the US and the world; it ain't going away. Air travel will always need flight attendants, baggage handlers, machinists, pilots, booking people, etc.. further, the crippling of the product, even for a day, is to cause major economic and social havoc and to demostrate the power of labor as that which keeps the industry flying (bad pun #2).
So, given that the industry is necessary and will remain, why should workers, through their unions, make deep economic concessions in order to maintain each company's economic competitiveness? Why is it important for workers to save the company? What do workers gain as a result of such an objective?
Given the reasonable density in the airline industry, it seems the key objective of workers is to send a message to the industry along the lines of, "Hey, deal with your damned problems, but you ain't gonna solve em' on our backs any more."
Above, I talked about a Stalingrad, or Midway type battle which union workers can win on an industry-wide basis, with great national and international impact. Right now, I can't see a better industry than the airlines to pick this battle.
Chuck Wynns
aka
Lambchop
August 25, 2005 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Per my last posting, I'd be real interested in getting folks' opinions regarding labor picking a "Midway" or "Stalingrad" type, change the momentum of power, kind of strike?
I'm really interested in where folks are at!!!! Honest..... Please..
Chuck Wynns,
aka
Lambchop
August 25, 2005 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
BenR - I'm not going to disagree with your last three sentences But I think you are missing the point on raiding. Each of the things that you are talking about was something that unions, working together, had an AFL-CIO process to resolve. AFSCME lost in that process in Illinois and it stood down. That isn't a raid. They made a case they had standing to intervene and lost. SEIU is now standing outside this conflict resolution process. It is a very different ball game. In fact, its a whole new ball game.
Before this happened we had an imperfect process but one that kept the peace. Sadly, too many of us defined "imperfect" as meaning we didn't win enough. Now the process is as "perfect" as any of us have the strength to make it.
August 25, 2005 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Benton,
I can assure you I'm not missing the point on raiding. I've worked on fighting back raids and won some and lost some. I know how damaging they can be. My point was that the actions that AFSCME, CWA and the Machinists took and continue to take played a big part in creating the disunity that lead to the split. As far as raiding and the AFL process, I don't believe the process worked. It served a narrow intererst without any concept of broader startegy or principles. Sometimes it worked, and quite often it did not, protecting the narrow interests of union leaders over the interests of the workers. Further, fights like those started by AFSCME in IL are often about cutting a deal. Breaking up home care workers by county in CA for example. A deal cut to avoid a big potential fight. What SEIU is doing in CA is the same thing, trying to to be in a position of advantage to bargain a no raid agreement.
There was criticism of SEIU for not including the public sector in their unite to win proposal. If that was the real issue, AFSCME could have easily shown Stern to be a hypocrite by backing the plan if it extended to the public sector. If stern blinked, score a point for McEntee. The same is true about the no raid agreements. SEIU has said it is willing to sign them with any and every union. If Stern's not sincere about this, prove it. AFSCME could offer to enter into a no raid agreement tomorrow, and if SEIU doesn't come to the table immmediately, then all the terrible things that have been said will be proven true. The ball is in AFSCME's court on this one, if you ask me.
August 25, 2005 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink