Working Life's ongoing special section devoted to holding the Cafta Fifteen accountable.
Buy the Wal-Mart documentary for $12.95
« The Iraq War Dispute | Main | Tuesday A.M. Clean-up, Morning Papers »
July 25, 2005
They Are Out!!!
Well, not that this surprises anyone here but, yes, SEIU and the Teamsters have pulled out of the Federation—effective immediately (sorry for the delay—can you believe it, no wireless at the press conference!!!). And I hear from insiders that the UFCW will pull out by the end of the week. As for UNITE HERE, a senior person told me, "that the other shoe doesn't always drop on the same day."
I’m going to try to transcribe the entire press conference over the next couple of hours and basically give everyone as much straight info and data; I'll do analysis and what's next later today or tomorrow.
But, here’s the most immediate question that the delegates cannot ignore: How does the AFL-CIO replace the $20 million that it will lose with the disaffiliation of these two huge unions? Do the Federation officers have a plan for increasing the per capita taxes at this convention? Because if they don't, then, severe cuts will need to be made--on top of the large staff cuts that just took place in the past couple of months.
I don't see how President Sweeney, on the eve of his certain re-election, can avoid giving the convention delegates a straight answer about how the Federation will survive financially without major steps being made. I asked this question more than one month ago after reviewing the proposed AFL-CIO budget and when it was quite obvious that at least SEIU was headed out the door--shouldn't there be a debate on the convention floor?
The press conference took place at the offices of Local 1 of SEIU, which has, in its entrance on the 25th floor, an amazing black-and-white old photo of 7,000 building service workers from the early part of the 20th century all standing in a hall and facing the camera for a picture....all white guys in those old style suits.
The media event was held in a relatively small conference room but it was packed with reporters 
from local and national outlets (The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Business Week and the Washington Post); there were nine television cameras. Heck, it's wild to see that kind of coverage of an AFL-CIO convention. Those of us who call ourselves the "labor hacks" are used to a tiny gaggle.
Jim Hoffa, president of the Teamsters, opened the press conference. You can read his prepared statement here but he didn't follow the text so here is a lot of what he said..."First of all, on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and our General Executive Board, we have voted to disaffiliate from the AFL-CIO. This is a historic announcement, it is not lightly. We have extended a number of propositions and ideas to the AFL-CIO to make sure that we could change the tide of the AFL-CIO. We have been disappointed over the last 10 years that we have seen a decline in membership, a decline in density."
We realize that there have to be changes. We suggested a number of changes. We said why don't we change our dues structure, why don't we have a rebate with regards to our per capita taxes. The Teamsters union spends over $10 million in per capita to the AFL-CIO. We had a simple proposition. We want $5 million rebated to us to invest and make sure that we can organize in our core industries. They said no. Their idea is to keep throwing money at politicians..."
"We do not take this action lightly. We realize that it will have an effect to some extent on the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO has many good people in that organization. We have tried to work with them..."
"We will continue to be the backbone of the American labor movement in supporting unions that are out there fighting for the American worker...We also intend to continue to support the CLCs and we're also going to continue to support the state federations because we believe they play a vital role with regard to state operations. We're going to continue in the Build Trades if we are permitted. If they throw us out, that is their business, that is their choice. We are a friend of all unions. This means we are going on a different course. It means we will spend our money differently, it means we will mobilize our workforce differently...and have new initiatives. What was being done at the AFL-CIO was not working. We're going to do something new."
From Andy Stern: “Last night, we had a discussion with the leaders of our union. Today, we have made the decision to disaffiliate from the AFL-CIO. I want to stress that this was not a happy or easy decision." The rest of his remarks pretty much followed his prepared statement.
The floor was, then, opened to the press (questions are condensed a bit).
Q: You owe dues to the AFL-CIO. what do you intend to do about that?
A: Stern: I think, as we said yesterday, there are a number of outstanding issues between ourselves...and the AFL-CIO that we have to resolve. We're going to need to get together when we all get back to Washington D.C. and I feel confident we can settle out all of our issues so that we can move forward with a clean slate.
Hoffa: The same thing is true...the Teamsters union has not paid dues for a couple of months coming up to this convention. That money is outstanding and we look forward and we'll discuss it with the AFL-CIO at the appropriate time. The money is in escrow so it's not a real big issue.
Q: Andy, some people say this moment like the 1930s when the CIO broke away from the AFL. You say you can mimic what the CIO did and organize millions of workers. And, Jim, your father was an amazing union organizer. what do you think will enable you to organize more in the Teamsters?
Hoffa: "I think that organizing...we've lost the ability to organize. Obviously, the economy has changed, good jobs are being outsourced, union jobs are being outsourced. When jobs are outsourced, they are not outsourcing the $6 dollar jobs, they are outsourcing the high-paying quality jobs that have been accomplished by the labor movement...What we have to do is go out in joint effort. What we find is that there is not enough joint efforts going on. I would point to the Cintas campaign that we have with HERE and UNITE, which I think is a revolutionary way to organize..."
Stern: "The labor movement has a very long history of looking at the future through the rear view mirror. So, I think I'm going to try to look into the future recognizing that we live in a very different era in the world and America. Companies not countries are making the rules, we live in a global, not a local economy, and we're not so unwise not to recognize that this is not the 1930s anymore. At the same time, we recognize that we can grow in the 21st Century...We talked about forming something fundamentally different, from the kind of loose operation of the AFL-CIO where campaigns have no accountability, where money is given out for political purposes but to really form a center for growth."
Q: How much have you paid into the AFL-CIO each year and will that impact your political activity?
A: Hoffa--the Teamsters per capita is $10 million per year that is paid to the AFL-CIO. We will not be paying that money anymore so therefore that money is money that will be dedicated to organizing, that is our number one priority, the entire amount of money will go into organizing, perhaps of that will go into the Change To Win coalition and the other half will be invested in core industries of the Teamsters union.
Stern: We spend $10 million a year on the AFL-CIO. We actually spend more money on politics than the AFL does in our own union and that's no discredit to what they are doing or they intend to do. I think the real question for all of us is we intend to cooperate with the AFL-CIO politically, we hope they intend to cooperate with us,
Q: Will you be signing any anti-raiding agreements? Will you be a rival Federation and how will you raise funds for this?
A: Hoffa--we are not setting up this Federation to go raid the brothers that we have...this is not an operation to undermine the accomplishment that have happened. We are not out to raid people, we will discuss with individual unions the possibility of no-raid agreements...we are open to that.
Q: Support Central labor councils? Would you set up seperate organizations? (two questions)
A: Hoffa--our intentions are, and what we have instructed our local unions out there in the field...is to keep paying dues. We believe these organizations fulfill a vital role. And there is a lot of fear...with our leaving, this could be up to 40 percent of their budgets and we do not want to disrupt this vital function. This could run into a problem because Brother Sweeney and the AFL-CIO are passing resolutions and amendments that say if you are not an affiliate you cannot participate in the CLCs. [on setting up separate bodies]...I will leave that to the CLCs.
Stern: The AFL-CIO and the labor movement in general does really badly when it adopts exclusionary practices. There was a time in the American labor movement, a sad movement in the American labor movement, when lots of unions didn't let African Americans into this movement. It did not serve the movement well. There was a time when PATCO went on strike in 1981 and because they were not in the AFL-CIO, we didn't rally to their support and we paid the price. It would be a tragedy if the AFL-CIO again repeats those kind of exclusionary tactics...
July 25, 2005 in Labor | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b76269e200d834599c7969e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference They Are Out!!!:
» Gleanings: AFL-CIO edition from Red Harvest
Now that SEIU and the Teamsters have officially quit the AFL-CIO, with UNITE-HERE and UFCW soon to follow, it seems a good time to take stock of the turmoil within the U.S. labor movement. [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 25, 2005 7:11:47 PM
» AFL-CIO Split Roundup from Unions-Firms-Markets
Sorry for the lack of posts but I have been in Chicago at the convention and have not had the time to update. Here are links to some of the mainstream press takes on the disaffiliation of the Teamsters and [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 26, 2005 8:30:14 AM
Comments
The 7,000 white guys were the Chicago immigrants of that era--Eastern Europeans, some Irish, and a large contingent of Belgians--I did an oral history interview with some of them & their descendants in the late 1970's--they and their families lived in the boiler rooms of apartment buildings. They were the workers no AFL union wanted at the time.
Posted by: Pat Thomas | Jul 25, 2005 5:28:14 PM
If your readers are interested, the audio from both Stern and Hoffa are available in mp3 format over on the WIN site.
Posted by: Jesse | Jul 25, 2005 5:58:05 PM
Pat- Thanks. I think that's an important reminder about the history of the labor movement and immigration.
Posted by: jacob | Jul 25, 2005 6:37:09 PM
Thanks for this Jonathan. Your blog is essential reading right now. Keep it coming.
Posted by: jw mason | Jul 25, 2005 7:49:16 PM
yeah, keep it coming...
hard to listen to, but I have to admit it's quite interesting...
now if stern could only get into a surprise fist fight with Gerry Mac in the parking lot in chitown
Posted by: Solidarious | Jul 25, 2005 9:45:50 PM
Jul. 25 2005 A Dissenting Opinion
I am 86 years old. I have been a labor activist since 1939. The two major players in the current brouhaha in the AFL-CIO both know me. In my files, there is a letter from John Sweeney commending me for success in denying an 18 million dollar loan from the Ct State pension funds to the New York Life Assurance Company whose clerical workers were on strike. And I was a party to discussions with Andy Stern, including a face-to face meeting on affiliation with SEIU. Unfortunately, Stern has it backasswards.
What you do first is to establish a program. Then you put it into effect. You do not have to get approval from your parents, from Sweeney, or from God. You have to do it. If successful, you look around for more hot shots to join the team.
Without a program you are left merely with a clash of personalities. And a clash of personalities can and will produce a lot of fireworks, but not much else. Putting a program ahead of personalities creates stronger and more lasting movement.
Stern’s critique of the AFL-CI0 was certainly on target. Frankly, I would have had the staff studying a different question: What is needed if we are to win the presidential election?
So the French overthrew the Ancien Regime. And yes, they chopped off a few hundred heads. And, when it was all over, who ruled the country, the same gang who ran it before -- with some added constitutional rights for the masses.
And how real is this so—called coalition. The head of the Laborers’ Union just announced that they will be present at the convention. Which of course, I believe is the right thing to do. As my grandmother, may she rest in peace, would have said of Andrew: “This is, by you, a labor leader?”
And, what kind of a labor tactic is it to run away from a fight? When you are there you can speak, argue, and convince if you are right. When you run out, you discourage your own troops in the rightness of your position.
And then, the pro—Sternites go on to say their threat of leaving is merely a tactic similar to a strike in negotiations with the boss. Sometimes putting a gun to the head of an opponent in collective bargaining produces results. But is that the only weapon in your arsenal? You put a gun to the head of ‘friends” or merely allies. You think introducing a pattern of such behavior is going to win friends? It’s not out of the question, but there is a question of using such a tactic as your chief weapon.
And, supposing you win. Do you really think that in such a negotiation you will win everything you want? Silly boys (I can’t say girls, since some leaders of SEIU of the female gender already sound like they know business)
So then this coalition already riddled with dissenters, has to formulate its program. What are they actually going to do, and how will they achieve their goals?
What this all adds up to is establishing your program first is the way to go. Then there is the talk emanating from the Stern camp that they can negotiate agreements outside of the current AFL-CIO Constitution maintaining the same jurisdictional protections as they have now. Nonsense. Once the leaders start to jump ships an utter state of confusion will occur. You will hear the last words of individual captains: “ Sauve qui peut” (French: “You’re on your own. Try to survive.)” And the agreements, both written and verbal, will be subject to Sam Goldwyn’s description of verbal agreements: “They’re not worth the paper they are written on.” The solidarity it took American labor a hundred or, yes, two hundred years will disappear as yes, our folks fight to the death over the possession of a life preserver.
How do I know? I’m a historian with a Ph.D. That’s not really the reason. The reason is common sense, and if you did not have it to start with, pray that you learned it at the school of hard knocks.
Gird your loins. Stay with your friends with all their warts. Stay and fight for your own point of view—-a labor point of view. Don’t yell – save the yelling to use against the boss. Keep this in mind: after all of this is over -- and it will be some day -- you will need to work together again.
And if you have forgotten how to count, go back to a community college for a refresher course. 40% of the membership: It does not matter if you think the 40% is the smartest, most clever, most well-spoken part of organized labor in these United States. 40% is 40% -- end of discussion.
Build from within. Kudos to those working to get the Brotherhoood of Carpenters and Joiners back with the rest of us. (If you do not know what this is, please don’t try to talk to those in the building trades). And try moving some of the smaller unions into your camp. That will provide some momentum. And you want to do something earth—shaking? Think of the words that Walter Reuther spoke to Shanker many years ago when the AFT had a handful of college locals based upon a desire of some intellectuals to be in the labor movement: go out and organize the K-12 sector and when you get enough members the NEA will have to travel the same route. Then merge. With another 2 million members under our belt the talk about labor’s decline would be somewhat muted.
Such a movement must be based upon the rank and file, city by city, school by school. It can have as many joint luncheons in the Beltway with a single caveat: don’t violate the standards of the anti—obesity movement. Base it on real issues. It appears that one of the best is to defeat the Bush administration’s attempts to cut into the value of teacher pensions. No, no that’s wrong. The law mandates that most of these extra bennies have to be available to all public school employees.
One last thought. Please remember that the reason Reuther’s merger advice came to naught was too much ego on the part of certain leaders.
Power is lying on the floor; all you have to do is pick it up.
Title: A dissenting opinion by Sid Lipshlres
* The Congress of Connecticut Community Col1eges known as “the 4C’s”
Posted by: Sidney Lipshires | Jul 25, 2005 10:04:08 PM
I disagree that the AFL needs to present a program to the delegates this week that deals with the loss of revenue from the affiliates that have decided to leave. I think that the reaction should come after we see who's in and who's out and what kind of deal is struck with the unions that owe dues for the last two months. Better to know the numbers that you are working with than to guess at them. The AFL can always call a one day (or even one-half day) Special Convention to take any necessary action if it needs to (It did this for its political program in 1996)
Filling the budget hole will raise many difficult issues regarding the prioities and staffing of the federation. The last round of budget cuts was difficult enough -- this round should be even worse. A public airing of these difficult issues this week would only give heart to our enemies, both in the government and in the private sector.
There is a good practical reason for taking a breath as well -- the federation should not lock itself into a course of action until it consults with the unions that represent its employees. Otherwise, it could be vulnerable to ulp charges. Again, our enemies would have a field day.
This split may or may not be historic. The split in 1938 proved to be historic; the UAW's decision to leave in 1967 (and its alliance with the IBT) proved to be merely a blip on the radar. Only time will tell whether Change to Win will be able to organize on a mass scale.
As of today, the AFL is still the only umbrella structure for the labor movement. The loss of affiliates is going to force another rethinking. That should be done deliberately and not this week.
Posted by: steve yokich | Jul 25, 2005 10:47:27 PM
It seems like the CtW Coalition stands for hope, in that they bring the possibility of a spark of life to the organization of the working class.
Let me be a little simplistic. The problems in the US stem, at heart, from the DISORGANIZATION of the working class. The ruling class has, for a number of reasons that I won't go into, been able to convince, or fool, the working class into being disorganized.
If the working class can raise its level of organization, at the grass roots, then the political situation will change for the better.
The CtW coalition seems to at least offer HOPE for a new surge of organization among working class people.
Does this sound simplistic or dogmatic? i submit to you that the solution, in its broadest outlines, is pretty simple. the devil is in the details. But as an outsider, it seems to me like at least the CtW folks are TRYING. That gives hope, and hope is usually a good thing.
Posted by: bruce | Jul 25, 2005 11:26:05 PM
I don't know that the actions taken by the CtW unions effect or destroy the labor movement in any significant way. On the contrary, I believe that it will be the reaction of the federation that could potentially set on course the events that we all hope will not happen. Full disclosure: I am (1) A seated Delegate at the convention, and (2) a staff person of a CtW union. It seems to me that there have been some sadly inappropriate measures taken here at this convention. Most obviously, the leadership of the AFL has completely foundered in its message regarding the CtW unions. The fed was loaded for bear, they were obviously prepared for mass disaffiliation and boycott of the convention, but they had no clue how to react when 4 of the 6 CtW unions remained affiliated, and totally overreacted with Linda Chavez Thompson's shameful tirade of Sunday morning. It was quite an appalling show to see Ms. Thompson lump the CtW unions in with the NAM and the right to work foundation. While I have very serious concerns about the actions taken by my union and the other CtW unions in regard to the future of the labor movement, on the issue of most importance to most of the delegates, they all have pledged to remain involved and affiliated in CLC's and State federations that work. This is huge because that's where the most important and enduring work of labor takes place, and they are the places outside of their own unions where most of these delegates invest most of their energy. The size of the executive committee, or whether the bureaucracy survives intact really doesn’t or shouldn't matter to most unionists because they really aren't the labor movement. The most interesting things for me to watch for the next 2 days will be: (1) to see what kind of reaction the AFL will have insofar as allowing those local and state affiliations to continue, and (2) what if any International unions fight against this idea. The answers could show the real point at which the labor movement is destroyed and just who is responsible for destroying it.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 26, 2005 12:36:06 AM
Wake Up!
SEIU is raiding 60,000 AFSCME Homecare workers in CA right now!
Posted by: TruthSquad | Jul 26, 2005 1:13:44 AM
This whole split seems to be caused by a clash of male egos. I have not heard one word that explains how this "Coalition" will organize new members. The only organizing will come from raiding existing unions. Not that the AFL-CIO has a clue either. We are going to end up with two ineffective labor groups instead of one.
Regarding maintaining local and state labor councils, why would unions in the AFL that will now be subject to raids from Coalition unions want to work at a local and state level with the bandits? And, I'm sure the Coalition unions will want to pay less than full freight at the local and state level.
US labor movement RIP, 7/25/05
Posted by: Maggie | Jul 26, 2005 1:16:03 AM
I love the SEIU and ctw rhetoric, it is what they are actually doing that is disgusting. Read the San Diego Tribune if you do not believe that SEIU is now raiding current union members. FYI, this started long before they actually left the convention.
Posted by: Realitycheck | Jul 26, 2005 1:41:17 AM
If the SEIU and other CtW Coalition unions are truly interested in organizing new, unrepresented workers, why has SEIU actively targeted already-represented workers in other unions to raid?
At this very moment, SEIU is conducting a massive raid on 60,000 AFSCME-represented home care workers in California.
Is THIS their idea of organizing new workers?
Furthermore, if the CtW unions really wanted to focus on their "core industries," why doesn't UFCW hand over their government worker bargaining units to a public sector union and instead focus on organizing the grocery industry?
Nearly all of the leaders (including Stern) of these CtW unions have been on the AFL-CIO executive board for years. If they want to point fingers at the AFL-CIO for the fall of American Labor, they should also accept some of the blame.
Karl Rove is laughing his ass off right now.
Wake up, people.
Posted by: no scabs | Jul 26, 2005 3:36:52 AM
wake up, people!
like no scabs, truthsquad, and realitycheck, i too work for afscme. i, too, am in serious denial about the state of the labor movement. and i, too, am forced to rationalize the ineffectiveness of the leadership of my own union and the afl-cio by pointing out that some of the change to win unions need to change if they want to win.
unfortunately, until i have a staff position with seiu or the teamsters, im forced to live in this illogical world where karl rove laughs his ass off at labor unions who are going to pour MORE money than ever before in the history of organized labor into new organizing. george bush jumps with glee at the site of labor unions taking bold steps to try to marshall their strength and millions upon millions of dollars into growing their ranks. the walton family is high fiving each other around the dinner table at the first mention of a new labor coalition who has proposed using $25 million dollars just to fight their company nationally, rather than continuing to vote them store by store.
if only people would follow my employer's plan and realize that the only way we can truly help workers is to elect more democrats like bill clinton. then when democrats control the white house, house, and senate, we can finally pass labor law reforms like they did under jimmy carter... oh wait...
Posted by: wakeup | Jul 26, 2005 8:11:32 AM
I have been following with interest the idea that CtW and the AFL-CIO can co-operate in certain areas. I don't claim to know what the rules may legally be for "co-operation" at the CLC and state fed level. From what I read, at least some of this is a function of the AFL-CIO constitution. However, I am well aware that before the IBT, UAW, and UMW reaffiliated with the AFL-CIO when Lane Kirkland was president, the AFL-CIO was LEGALLY unable to have them on its political file, because they were not members.
I think that the amount of "co-operation" on political matters between the AFL-CIO and CtW may be a legal, not a constitutional, issue, just as it is with 527's like ACT. If such is the case, Karl Rove may well be breaking out the champagne.
Posted by: D Flinchum | Jul 26, 2005 8:26:42 AM
I agree with steve y on waiting until they have actual numbers. That's the only way they can really be fair to the staff in what is sure to be the next round of layoffs - if they remember what fairness is this time, that is.
Posted by: anon | Jul 26, 2005 8:29:14 AM
"im forced to live in this illogical world..."
Sounds like you're tired of living in denial and that your work in the Labor Movement has turned out to be just another J.O.B.
But there's hope. You don't have to march to the same old drum all your life.
Take charge now. See union jobs clearinghouse for a way out.
Posted by: Awake | Jul 26, 2005 8:34:32 AM
Yes, SEIU is currently raiding 40-60,000 homecare workers in California and it's kind of a nasty thing to do, but look at it in perspective. If SEIU is successful two important things will have happened:
1. SEIU will have shown AFSCME twice in the last 6 months that it can out organize it. Negotitating a post disaffiliation no raid agreement will definetely favor seiu since they've shown afscme in illinois and if seiu wins these home care workers, in california that they will win these big fights.
2. If SEIU wins, they will represent something like 340,000 home care workers, while AFSCME will represent less than 10,000. With those kind of numbers, hopefully they'll show that it is possible to raise standards, just like they did for Janitors on the west coast.
It may not be nice, but it puts SEIU into a pretty powerful position. Now it might backfire making this whole thing more about andy stern being an ass than organizing, but obviously that's a risk they're willing to take. There are going to be jurisdictional fights, after all, this started out as a jurisdictional fight but hopefully they become the exception rather than the rule.
Posted by: Adam Chevrin | Jul 26, 2005 9:21:10 AM
To respond to the criticism of SEIU as exagerating its commitment to organizing:
1) over the last ten years SEIU has spent more on organizing than any other union (over 50% of its budget).
2) over those ten years it has more than doubled in size, organizing 900,000 new workers, only a fraction on uncertain turf.
3) afscme can complain all day, but so long as they let SEIU organize for nearly a decade (Illiois Homecare)swoop in at the end and try to win the election that SEIU made happen, than i think its fairly obvious that afscme is not part of the the solution.
Posted by: Ray | Jul 26, 2005 9:29:05 AM
It looks like the battle lines are being drawn. Sounds like AFSCME members and staff will insist that Mc Entee fight against any cooperation on the ground with CtW unions. Too bad for all that. I guess the CtW guys are right, the old guard stands for continuation of ineffective strategies at any cost. Remember the old definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results? Sound familiar? BTW where I'm from in New York, neither AFSCME or it's local affiliate CSEA pay anywhere near their full per capita to the state or local labor councils. A sad irony when compared to their leaderships' lofty rhetoric about full afilliation, and which has been the case for the full ten years of my involvement. Even with all that, my members and I will still be there, walking CSEA picket lines, fighting to elect labor friendly people to public office, and rallying to protect public sector jobs against governments version of the race to the bottom mentality. Just like we did in 1948 when we shut down the city of Rochester with a general strike to support AFSCME's organizing of city workers. Again, the real labor movement resides on the ground, where workers live and work, not in the AFL offices in D.C. and certainly not in the executive council of the AFL. To me what matters most is the work we do on the ground, to pull us apart at that level seems insane.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 26, 2005 10:23:25 AM
I've posted this in another place on this site, but it seems appropriate for all the grandstanding by CtW people and AFSCME people.
"I've been involved in organizing for a couple of years now and in the beginning it was a lot like Romney's statement: my boys, as black kids from all economic walks, felt like we were walking into an opportunity to give people some hope and a chance to impact their own lives.
But sadly, I think this is all about being in charge and telling everyone what to do. Organizers working in the movement are seeing it firsthand: Chicago's battle between SEIU and AFSCME, tauted as a huge labor victory, was a real view for most of us into the minds of men who think that they know better than everyone else and just fundamentally don't care about democracy in the labor movement.
I'm startled by the lack of worker participation and how lacking in rank and file this entire move is. I'm concerned by the totally angry and vicious this movement has become, and how those in power think that if they threaten anyone who gets in their way that they're still following a plan of action that is still in the right.
But most of all, I'm saddened by the fact that as a 25 year old young man, I'm going to inherit this gigantic pile of viceral rhetoric, false solidarity, and bullshit."
Now I'll sit and wait for those who think they know everything, white and right, to tear it apart, tear me apart, and just in general act like fools.
No animal is more equal than another. Act like you know, peoples. The cities you organize in you probably have only visited through Cops or HBO's The Wire. My boys lived it, lost friends, or died in them. You don't know the movement because you don't know the streets. Until the white kids from the suburbs realize this fact, we'll all be at the mercy of CtW and Big Labor's machinations.
Speaking for the streets,
Solidarious
Posted by: Solidarious | Jul 26, 2005 12:49:02 PM
I completely support the expansion of organizing programs. But I cannot condone dedicating union members' dues to pirating workers who already HAVE a union. I especially cannot support raiding other unions to prove some sort of macho point about who can out organize who.
If we really want to increase union membership, we have to look at membership on a large, cross-union scale- not just in regards to how many "new members" a union like SEIU has organized (especially when many of those have come at the cost of depleting another union's ranks).
If we should look to SEIU as a gleaming model of accomplishment in the world of organizing, we should also take into consideration the quality and intent of their attempts in places like Chicago, where basic ethics of organizing were thrown aside in order skim dues from 50,000 welfare checks. Are these people better off now that their rights to health insurance, retirement benefits, and worker's compensation have been signed away?
And for what? ...A purple t-shirt?
SEIU may put more money into organizing than most other unions, but they also put more money in to politics than most others. To whittle this situation down to a "organizing vs. politics" fight is ill informed.
I feel more and more like organized labor is revving it's engine for a pitiful race to the bottom.
Posted by: no scabs | Jul 26, 2005 6:19:28 PM
No Scabs: Unless you have personal experience with the 10-year drive to unionize child care providers in IL, then I am going to ask you to please not talk so authoritatively about something you only know second-hand.
I know several of the organizers from the early days of that drive as well as the Head Organizer of SEIU Local 880. I'm not saying 880 is perfect, nor am I saying SEIU is perfect, but I am saying that you are using especially strong language to denigrate the accomplishments of the leaders of 880 who all come from low-wage sectors of the economy, but are very clear about their organizing goals and how to accomplish them. Your language indicates to me that you don't actually know them, nor have any personal experience with the drive and you are using them as pawns in your rhetorical game. I find this to be both rude and classist, especially when you go the next step and presume to speak for them.
I do, however, agree with your larger point about radiing and about spending time organizing the UNORGANIZED and agree that a reduction of the arguement to "organizing vs. politics" is simplistic. Though I don't think anyone on this site is or has been really guilty of that kind of thinking.
What I would really like to see is that this site remain a place where people can make constrcutive statements and ask hard questions about the future of labor with the idea of actually getting to a new place, rather than scoring rhetorical and personal points against other posters.
Afterall, bombast and flame wars here aren't going to stop SEIU and AFSCME from doing what they are doing.
Posted by: NathanHJ | Jul 26, 2005 6:56:22 PM
It's interesting, statements like that of "no scabs" above. How shortsighted have the people who make up our movement become? 50,000 welfare checks? Actually I guess, historically speaking, "no scabs" isn't too far off the traditional mark. What I find most interesting about organizing in home health and childcare is the possibility of workers to redefine the way we look at the work they do. Fifteen years ago the biggest roadblock to homecare workers organizing was the fact that what they do for 4 or 6 or 8 or 12 hours a day wasn't looked at as work. Hey, they're just picking up public aid, right? Bunch of damn welfare queens, trying to say that babysitting old folks is actual work.
If labor is going to mean anything to anyone, it has to mean something to those of us who are demeaned the most, who work the hardest for the smallest morsels of respect, those of us who are invisible in the day to day workings of the economy, but without whom the economy wouldn't do much moving. That's, in my mind, the space that's occupied by homecare workers, by childcare workers, by farm workers, by day laborers, by dishwashers and chicken pluckers and workfare litter cleaners and the millions and millions more who make up the rarely seen backbone of our society. If labor can't find room in the house or at the front of the bus for these workers, then what are we? We're a social club of middle-class fakirs with our heads in the damn sand, only poking up to do a little bit of lobbying. Or should I say, we will be the ones who oversee our own quick and painful demise.
Okay, getting a little overblown and misty-eyed here. But I'd like to ask "no scabs" to take a walk down the street in Chicago, anywhere, knock on the first door you come across with a little "home daycare" sign on it, and ask the woman or man who answers if they mind SEIU "skim[ming] dues from [their] welfare check." After you get smacked upside the head, then asked to leave, you'll probably hear the word "no" ringing in your ears while you slink back down the steps to the street.
Posted by: anonymous | Jul 26, 2005 9:16:20 PM
For the record, I was in Chicago during the organizing effort for child care providers. I had many conversations with the folks who are now members of SEIU 880.
Eighty to 90% of the folks brought into SEIU under this effort were family members caring for grandchildren, children, nieces or nephews. They did not have signs in their windows, they were not in any way regulated by the state, and the "payment" they received from the state was, to them, nothing more than a welfare check. And a measely one at that. A majority of these folks could barely feed their familes.
I spoke with countless people who HAD been paying dues to 880 for several years... And when asked what they'd seen for the dues they'd paid, every single one of them said "nothing."
After 10 years of work (supposedly) with Illinois child care providers, I think it's fair to expect at least SOME tangible improvements...
If SEIU was really interested in helping Illinois child care providers, why did they only have one organizer assigned to work with all 50,000 workers up until a year and a half before the GOTV effort?
When the SEIU won this election, they won automatic dues deduction from the state checks of 50,000 people. They also gave away the right for these providers to ever negotiate with the state over retirement, health benefits, or worker's compensation.
...Just like 880 did with their home health care workers in Illinois.
Imagine that for a moment. What kind of union just signs away their members' rights to retirement, health insurance, and workers' comp?
To me, that's not an example of labor giving low income workers a "seat at the front of the bus," so to speak.
Posted by: no scabs | Jul 27, 2005 12:24:36 AM
