Tom Embarrasses Himself

    Sigh. I keep reading this letter sent to me and I wonder, "is this guy for real? Was this just sent to get his rocks off? Did he have anyone read the letter before he sent it?"

     The "guy" is R. Thomas Buffenbarger, president of the International Association of Machinists (IAM). Throughout the debate over the future of the labor movement, Tom B. has set himself up as one of the main organizational, intellectual and rhetorical foils to SEIU's Andy Stern; you might remember The New York Times Magazine article that profiled Stern in which Tom B. was the main anti-Stern voice. Folks, if this was a boxing match, the ref would have stopped the fight BEFORE the bell for the first round.

    So, now, Tom B. sends a June 28th letter to all AFL-CIO Board members entitled "Public Relations Puffery" where he attacks the insurgents. The letter is snide, bitter and nasty--I can't imagine John Sweeney, who has kept a very calm public tone in this debate, thinks the letter helps his cause. Frankly, Sweeney could score a few points by saying, "Look, I've said to everyone, we have to keep this discussion  respectful and I don't think this tone helps."

    The substance of the letter is mostly that the Change To Win coalition is engaged in a power grab. You may think that that is, in fact, the case--but there's got to be a more clever way to take that issue on.

    Tom B. focuses on the specific proposal proposed by the coalition to create a more powerful Executive Committee (I discussed this yesterday), a subset of the full Executive Council that would  be composed of the 13 largest affiliates, four at-large members and the Federation's president.

    The first mistake Tom B. made was quoting from a statement put out by the United Food and Commercial Workers, which suggested that "an executive committe shall be comprised of the chief executive officers of the 13 largest or the minimum number of unions necessary to represent the majority of the affiliate members." That sends Tom B. on a tirade...because that might have left him off the Committee. But let's ignore that because that's not what is being proposed. Tom B. could have waited until the coalition's proposals came out to understand that.

    Either way, Tom B. sees the creation of the Executive Committee as a threat, without any checks and balances to "prevent the arbitrary, capricious and corrupt use" of its proposed powers.

    The kicker is this comment at the end of the letter. The AFL-CIO, he says, "is not yet an autocracy--an organization ruled by a select few. It's a federation of fifty-seven independent and autonomous unions that can decide what is in their own interest."

    And it's the last statement that is the most troubling, aside from the tone. It is the very fact that the AFL-CIO is 57 independent and autonomous unions that has gotten the labor movement into such dire straights. Like the Heinz 57 different varieties that turns into a mush of ketchup (now isn't that convenient?), the labor movement devolves into a mush of the lowest common denominator. No strategy, no cohesion, no direction.

    Let's take the Machinists and, in particular, Tom B. You might remember, back in the 1990s, the Machinists, UAW and Steelworkers announced a proposed merger--I liked to call it Heavy Metal (which is actually probably the only music I will not listen to). It was negotiated by the three union presidents who would all be retired once the merger became a reality. Made sense, too: three unions in industries that overlapped.

    You wonder why it never came off? When he took over, Tom B. deep-sixed it. Why?  Simple--after all those years rising to the top, no way was he going to not be the top dog (or give up his private jet). And he wouldn't have been since he came from the smallest union and was the youngest. Now, he could have waited for a few years and, probably, eventually, he could have taken the top spot. But, not Tom B.

    You think the Machinists' members--who are losing their livelihoods left and right, with the massive layoffs in the airline and aerospace industry (China is going to be making those jets before you can bat an eye) might have been better off with a more powerful union? Not to mention the Steelworkers and Autoworkers members? You think?

    I, and I think, many others in the labor movement didn't need the coalition or even SEIU to argue that it's crazy to have so many unions, many of whom are weak and ineffectual (I wrote about this ten years ago in The Edifice Complex). It is dividing worker power. I am certain there are those within the Sweeney camp who believe that is true also.   

    And all the coalition is doing is exposing that dirty little secret: that too many union leaders are unwilling to change because it means giving up their own personal power. And what's even more appalling is that they are using "democracy," a very important concept, as a cover to avoid change.

   Anyone, here's the letter if you'd like to read it.