Working Life's ongoing special section devoted to holding the Cafta Fifteen accountable.
Buy the Wal-Mart documentary for $12.95
« Now, I'm Into Spanking | Main | UFCW Redux and Who's Next? »
July 29, 2005
UFCW Out
The United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) has just voted to leave the AFL-CIO. That's no surprise--I had written earlier in the week that they would leave the Federation.
That mean's the Federation will lose another $7.35 million in per capita taxes. If you add that to the already lost per capita with the disaffiliation of SEIU and the Teamsters, the Federation will lose between $25-$27 million--out of a $126 million budget--meaning a more than a quarter of the budget is gone.
For several weeks, I have suggested that the budget presented to the Executive Council was not realistic given the clear indication that one or more large affiliates would leave the Federation. I am perplexed that the officers of the Federation would not at least give the delegates a sense of what was to come, though John Sweeney did say, on the last day of the convention that the disaffiliations of SEIU and the Teamsters "will significantly impact" the Federation's finances.
Obviously, more deep staff cuts are on the horizon. The question will be: where will those staff cuts be made? In the last round of cuts, top managers were spared.
Having said that, while this is not a happy situation for the Federation, it might force a broader rexamination of the proper role of the Federation. More on that soon.
July 29, 2005 in Labor | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b76269e200d83459adb469e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference UFCW Out:
» Labor blogging roundup from The Bellman
Nathan Newman's weekly labor roundup is a great resource, but it disappoints me that he seldom, if ever, links to labor blogging. Grousing aside, here's my own feeble attempt at a labor blog roundup for the week that was.
First up, Mick Arran of Dispatc [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 3, 2005 11:59:43 AM
Comments
Makes the Walmart campaign a little tricky now, eh?
Posted by: LaborDude | Jul 29, 2005 1:35:54 PM
Actually 25-27M out of 126M is around 1/5 of the budget, not a quarter.
Posted by: Anon | Jul 29, 2005 2:42:47 PM
wal-mart campaign was already being waged by ufcw and seiu now with the teamsters and unite-here there should be lots more resources to win.
Posted by: Ray | Jul 29, 2005 3:21:41 PM
Yeah, all that Fed (and FAST)money, research, and support didn't help the Wal-Mart campaign at all, right?
Posted by: Trapper John | Jul 29, 2005 3:48:30 PM
FAST is largely funded by UFCW Trapper John, right?
What fed money are you refering to?
One of the CTW issues was the lack of willingness on the part of the AFL to create a fund to organize wal-mart. remember the $25M proposal?
Posted by: Ray | Jul 29, 2005 4:28:11 PM
Trapper John-
Dude, FAST is almost entirely funded by the UFCW.
Posted by: Mike | Jul 29, 2005 4:38:56 PM
If I had plenty of money I would devote the next 10 years to organizing WalMart. I think they need to set up regional organizers and well, just start pounding the pavement. WalMart will be the largest single organizing project since the car makers I believe.
And now since UFCW has walked, hopefully there will be money to begin the campaign. But it will take years and the committment of many.
Just my humble opinion.
Posted by: Jan | Jul 29, 2005 4:50:13 PM
"Having said that, while this is not a happy situation for the Federation, it might force a broader rexamination of the proper role of the Federation."
Long time reader, first time poster. My biggest concern is that when the AFL is pushed back, does that mean that anyone who doesn't belong to CtW is basically up for the taking? Seems strange that with all these withdrawls, we're seeing coinciding poaching by SEIU (not that it didn't go on before).
Posted by: Reece Chenault | Jul 29, 2005 6:09:50 PM
Not demonizing anyone, but just to note: at existing SEIU units around the country, raids started before the words "we disaffiliate" could be completed. From AFSCME and other AFL affiliates.
Posted by: anon | Jul 29, 2005 6:13:27 PM
can you give deatails of the raids you claim are taking place? This blog has been wrong SO often. It was just last week that tasini was saying that the Teamsters wouldn't go. SO let's hear the facts about these raids.
Posted by: anon1 | Jul 29, 2005 6:40:00 PM
I don't think tasini ever thought the teamsters weren't leaving, it was just a question of how quickly...
I am curious as to why UNITE-HERE hasn't left yet. What do people think... and what about the laborers and the ufw.... now that the convention's over, what are they all waiting for.
I always thought that the laborers would have a harder time leaving, and the ufw was such a recent surprise, but why would UNITE-HERE wait any longer? For that matter, why did the UFCW wait? Why not all do it together, as a group....
Posted by: steve | Jul 29, 2005 7:18:42 PM
affiliates leaving individually could be a PR move: creating a story of CtW building momentum.
if 5 unions leave at the same time, its a story for one day. if they leave over the course of two weeks, the story stays alive in the press. and the story gets the added dimension of momentum.
which -- if there are any substantive talks with unaligned affiliates -- creates opportunities for further CtW growth.
this is a good question, though it has more to do with process than substance. we loves the horserace!
--
on another note, the topic of raiding has come up often in recent days in different threads. a suggestion to JT: maybe post something on all this raiding stuff, separating fact from rumor, and we will then have one thread on which to have that discussion.
Posted by: Josh H. Pille | Jul 29, 2005 7:36:14 PM
unitehere will leave. be patient.
Posted by: dh | Jul 29, 2005 7:49:44 PM
I actually have no appetite for the horserace. I have less appetite for war. This whole thing disgusts me. A pox on both their houses for failing to complete a deal.
Alternatives on the unions leaving when they do thing:
If 5 unions leave at the same time, then only the rock star union presidents (Stern/Hoffa) get the press. Hansen has a day in the sun now.
If 5 unions leave at the same time, then LIUNA, UNITE-HERE and UFCW start to lose some of their distinct identity and become part of a large whole. One that will have decidedly more hostile relations with AFL. Best to let Stern be the lightning rod. (He's good at it - and that is a compliment). Each of these three has larger liabilities in departing than the big 2.
But Josh's explanation also fits the facts.
Posted by: benton | Jul 29, 2005 9:18:25 PM
wow, for someone with no appetite for the horserace, you sure served us up a heaping dose, there.
Posted by: dh | Jul 29, 2005 9:20:45 PM
DH: I just tried to email you directly, but your given email address bounced back.
Didn't we nearly bet on whether or not UNITE-HERE would bolt the AFL? I seem to remember you offering $1,000 that they would not, and I took the other side. I could be misremembering, of course; I'm too lazy to search the site's archives at the moment...
Posted by: Josh H. Pille | Jul 29, 2005 9:31:20 PM
You all can argue about who is right and who is wrong in this battle of the egos until the cows come home.
But one thing is perfectly clear.
The fact that members of an organization devoted to improving workers lives are leaving is a sure sign of a failure of leadership.
You can like John Sweeney or dislike him. It doesn't matter. He has failed the organization.
This horror did not happen under Meany. Meany was the president who brought the AFL and the CIO together.
This did not happen under Kirkland. Kirkland brought the UAW back into the fold.
As president of the AFL-CIO, Sweeny holds distinction of being the leader responsible for the break-up of the modern American labor movement.
So something is seriously wrong with the leadership, regardless of who is wrong or right.
If Sweeney can't bring the so-called dissident unions to the table, it is time to find someone who can.
When staff workers of the AFL-CIO are treated worse than any worker at Wal-Mart and are dismissed in order to maintain the power of Sweeney, Welch and company, something is very wrong with the labor movement.
How can any worker in America take this group as serious protectors of workers rights when they trample on the very people who work for them?
Posted by: Victoria Woodhull | Jul 29, 2005 10:03:00 PM
Going back up to Trapper John and Ray's comment about Fed money for organizing Walmart, the AFL actually had at least 2-3 fulltime staff working with SEIU's WalmartWatch, the Five Stones, and UFCW's WakeUpWalmart folks. This doesn't include local CLC staff who put together forums in their regions.
That was before the positions got defunded and discontinued, but you have to give minimal credit where it is due.
Posted by: Not an AFSCME Staffer | Jul 29, 2005 11:19:28 PM
DH -
Its like watching a car wreck. I can't take my eyes off of it. And I am becoming vicerally opposed to dressing up either side in this in white hats or portraying them as some sorts of paragons of union virtue or uber geniuses. No one here seems to be making that mistake about John Sweeney, so I'm probably harshing on C2W more. But I agree with a lot of what Victoria Woodhull posted above as well. I just think it took two sides to make a bad situation worse.
Posted by: benton | Jul 29, 2005 11:26:18 PM
mea culpa!
dh did predict a UNITE HERE disaffiliation. i was on the other side of that one at the time.
it's certainly looking like dh called it right.
Posted by: Josh H. Pille | Jul 29, 2005 11:58:32 PM
UNITE-HERE has a different issue: the amalgamated bank.
if/when they leave the afl other unions might pull their assets from the bank. depending on the timing, it could be a big problem as they probably lend monet 10-1 like commerical banks, so there could be a bank run.
the laborers need to figure out the Building Trades aranangement as they are way lower on the construction totem poll than the carpernters. also there International Pres is a possible consensus candidate and could bring folks back toghether if the AFL and CTW are to reunite.
Posted by: Ray | Jul 30, 2005 12:34:26 AM
Working America in Seattle had also been working on Wal-Mart, with around 8-12 fulltime canvassers going out 5 days a week raising support for a health care responsibility act. The gist is employers have to pay adequate health insurance or pay the state back when their employees end up on the state plans. The actual bill hasn't been written yet so details are sketchy. In the land of crappy consequences to this whole argument, SEIU and UFCW were major players in working on this issue with the Washington State Labor Council, so who knows where that stands now.
Carl
Posted by: Carl | Jul 30, 2005 12:49:20 AM
Should have made clearer, this bill would be aimed at large employers, with what "large" constitutes being one of the questions up in the air.
Carl
Posted by: Carl | Jul 30, 2005 12:50:57 AM
Each of the CTW Unions have their own political issues to work out before they can disaffiliate, they have to calm the fears of their big locals before they make the plunge.
I suspect this is why UFCW went when they did and why UNITE-HERE hasn't gone yet.
Posted by: LaborDude | Jul 30, 2005 1:18:29 AM
Perhaps the real reason behind UFCW waiting to leave is that they wanted Sweeney to fall into their trap, and he and the rest of labor did. The AFL-CIO Convention delegates passed Resolution 23, submitted by UFCW. That resolution, regarding the Wake-Up Wal-Mart campaign specifically says:
"THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations and its affiliates commit to supporting UFCW’s national Wake-Up Wal-Mart campaign to build a nationwide grassroots movement by organizing local community coalitions throughout the country; and
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the AFL-CIO commit to support the UFCW’s efforts to build a global coalition to ensure that Wal-Mart’s antiunion business model does not become established internationally."
With UFCW's withdrawal, AFL-CIO affiliates may not have the stomach to support UFCW's effort, but they'd be hard pressed to field another union to go head-to-head with UFCW in organizing those workers. It will be interesting to see how many millions of dollars the Change To Win Coalition puts into Wal-Mart organizing to aid their new bed-buddy.
Posted by: Robin O. Hunter | Jul 30, 2005 3:17:21 AM
