Working Life's ongoing special section devoted to holding the Cafta Fifteen accountable.
Buy the Wal-Mart documentary for $12.95
« Shocking News: The Rich Got Richer | Main | Bringing Down Mickey Mouse »
October 06, 2005
Inch by Inch: Solidarity Charters
Just got this exchange between John Sweeney and Anna Burger, chair of the Change To Win federation. As I've already reported, both sides are making efforts at extending olive branches to each other in an effort to come to some meeting of the minds on the AFL-CIO's proposed Solidarity Charters.
On September 28th, Burger sent a letter to Sweeney laying out ways to resolve any remaining differences. Sweeney responded on October 3rd in a letter where he seems to feel that only two issues remain to be resolved. He also adds that any changes in the structure of the Solidarity Charters would need Executive Council approval--so presumably if such a thing is in in the works, it might come up at today's Executive Council meeting.
Burger responded a day later, where she says, "My letter of September 28, 2005 is a signed settlement on behalf of all CTW Unions, of all issues regarding participation at the state local bodies. Included in the agreement is our proposal to discuss financial support which is included in the overall financial discussion now taking place."
So, it seems to me that, if the parties are truly trying to reach a deal, it's within reach. At the same time, CTW has set the stage to set up its own labor councils. Article X of the new federation's constitution speaks about setting up STATE AND REGIONAL LABOR ALLIANCES, which could include "nonaffiliated unions and other appropriate organizations"--meaning, I suppose, that AFL-CIO unions and even non-labor community organizations could join up.
I'll stick with my constant position: the more cooperation between the two labor federations, the better. And I hope we'll see more of that down the road.
October 6, 2005 in Inside Labor | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b76269e200d8345a7e0253ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Inch by Inch: Solidarity Charters:
Comments
Check out aflcio.org. The AFL-CIO has set up the first industry coordinating committee under the reforms the Change to Win unions brought about before they left. But the committee is not really designed to coordinate in an industry, its to make the CWA the merger home for the AFL-CIO's entertainment unions.
The industry is defined as arts, entertainment, media, and telecommunications. So the committee is going to coordinate between actors, broadcasters, and telephone installers. Same old AFL-CIO making decisions based on internal politics and not what makes sense for workers.
The CWA is larger than all the other unions combined. This committee is its reward for sticking with Sweeney. The CWA with the AFL-CIO's help tried to get AFTRA to affiliate with it and compete with the Screen Actors Guild but AFTRA said no so now the AFL-CIO is helping the CWA try again but with the whole entertainment industry as the target and not just AFTRA.
Don't get me wrong, uniting the entertainment unions after all these years is a good idea. But they will need non-AFL-CIO unions like the Teamsters and the writers guild in the West, and they will have to keep it from becoming like other mergers the CWA has done just to increase their numbers, like taking in a group of flight attendants when they are not the right union.
Posted by: Is this reform? | Oct 6, 2005 6:20:20 PM
"...they are not the right union."
So who is supposed to decide for the flight attendants which is the "right union" for them? I thought it was the workers' right to decide.
CWA is one of the most democratic and progressive unions in the US, with a high degree of worker participation. They are an "organizing union", leading the way in "bargaining to organize", and their members have been known to strike thousands strong to defend the organizing rights of a few dozen non-union workers. They are the founding union and strongest supporter of Jobs with Justice, the most successful union-community coalition in the US.
True, they represent workers in several sectors, from manufacturing (IUE) and transportation (AFA) to white collar (TNG), printing, communications, media (NABET) and the public sector.
What I don't understand is why it is okay for SEIU and UFCW and UNITE-HERE and the Teamsters to be "general unions", but CWA isn't the "right union" for flight attendants; why it is okay for SEIU to organize nurses and bus drivers and parking lot attendants, for UFCW to organize retail clerks, meatcutters and garment workers, for UNITE-HERE to organize textile workers, retail workers, laundry workers, hotel workers, restaurant workers and nursing homes, why the Teamsters can organize "anyone who breathes", all okay, but the CWA...
As far as the rationale for this industry coordinating committee is concerned, there is a convergence between arts, entertainment, media and telecommunications, reflected in the growth of cable and internet as the medium for the entertainment industry, so the telephone and cable installer becomes the technician who provides the consumer with access to the arts and entertainment.
Posted by: Joe Hill | Oct 6, 2005 7:28:46 PM
Back in the good ol days of the unite to win blog, I used the screen name Joseph Hillstrom, so I'm quite pleased to be debating you Mr. Hill.
As far as whether or not it's "okay" for this or that union to be a general union, I think its hard to put CWA and the teamsters general unionism on par with the supposed general unionism of SEIU and UNITE HERE. Its really not a matter of being ok or not, its a matter of what works. I don't see a huge problem with this ICC, if for no other reason than no one seems to have a good plan down for this broadly defined industry, so getting the parties together to talk about it can't be a bad idea.
That is, to me, a completely different issue than mergers and organizing campaigns that target workers where there is already a union with a real plan in action that is working. CWA would raise bloody hell if anyone else decided they were going to start organizing the remaining non-union cingular workers, and they should. While the charge of general unionism is often leveled against SEIU and UNITE HERE!, it is way off. SEIU was moving in a general direction, but for the last 10 years has been running the other direction as fast as it can, by restructuring its locals allong industrial lines or encouraging members outside of its 3 core industries to join unions with an undustry focus, same for UNITE and HERE before their merger. For UNITE maybe a merger with UFCW would have made more sense looking at their historical membership, but if you look at their current organizing projects they lined up well with HERE, specifically industrial laundries and multiservice companies.
As far as the specifics of your claim, for the one millionth time SEIU represents 3 "industries:" Healthcare (which accounts for nurses, which some people can't seem to figure out), Building Services (primarily janitors and security gaurds, but also some parking lot attendants) and public sector workers (yes, indeed bus drivers, though often subcontracted, work for school districts)
The UFCW, retail clerks and meat cutters, who's namesake unions merged to create the UFCW, quite often WORK for the same employer, i.e. SAFEWAY, that is NOT an example of general unionism at all, the garment workers may be, and the UFCW and UNITE HERE need to figure out how to cooperate to protect the few jobs left in that industry(which is the whole point of CtW), but I don't remeber UFCW launching any major organizing drives in garment factories in the last year since they's decided to pursue an industrial approach.
UNITE HERE doesn't organize nursing homes, they STOPPED because they realized it made more sense for SEIU to do it. They've even encouraged their members in nursing homes, such as Ohio, to join SEIU, and the members voted to do just that. Retail clerks veer outside their core focus, but its not hard to see how the union for people who produced the clothes grew to represent the workers who along the distribution and retail lines. Once again, UNITE HERE and UFCW, along with the teamsters, all need to work together to figure out how to take on this industry where they all represent workers. (yeah, the whole point of CtW again...)
UNITE, recognizing the troubles the garment industry was in, strategically identified industries they could organize to build power in, and indentified industrial laundries as a key industry where they had some membership, where there was a large pool of workers that were unorganized and no union doing anything about it, and decided to organize it. An example that all unions struggling with diminishing workforce can and should follow. This industry lent nicely to the merger with HERE who was taking on the multiservice companies in the hospitality industry. As far as trying to seperate HERE's hotel organizing from its restaurant organizng, thats silly. Most if not all the restaurants are in Hotels, and they work for the same companies. No one, including HERE has figured out how to take on other restaurants, and it may or may not make sense for HERE to be the union to do it.
The point of all this, to me, is not to point fingers at unions and say you're screwed up. The point is to point the fingers inward and say we have to change. SEIU and UNITE HERE have been doing that for the last 10 years. You don't have to like the results, but to pretend otherwise is dillusional. The leadership of the UFCW, to their credit, has said that they have to change. I'm reserving judgement on the results. The teamsters have said we're not gonna change that much, but we will coordinate with other unions to try and be more successful. I'm not so sure where this will lead, of all the CtW unions, they are truest "general union".
The CWA, on the other hand, has said we're not gonna change and we're not gonna listen to any ideas. We'll organize any group of workers that we want, without any respect to the long term strategy of building a movement with real power, and if you don't like it, screw off, we're taking our money out of your bank. If the CWA wants to be THE union for the enterainment industry, along with being THE union for the telecommunications age I'm okay with that. But go do it. Put together a decent plan to take on verizon for god's sake. Where's the strike in verizon land line bargaining to win organizing rights for verizon wireless. Where's the plan to stop the bleeding at comcast and start organizing the rest of the company? Waiting for congress to pass card check is not gonna get it done! If I were a member of CWA, I'd say stop screwing around in healthcare and gaming, there are already really good unions out there working their butts off to organize those industries, and lets get to work in Telecom, IT, entertainment and whatever other industries we decide to focus on. People should note, I would add, that that is EXACTLY what the TDU is calling for in their union. See, democracy doesn't HAVE to mean going against your own best interest. Workers can democratically choose to become stronger. it's the "leaders" who stand in the way.
Posted by: Ben | Oct 6, 2005 9:04:42 PM
Guess what? If it hadn't been for CWA we would never have gotten to organize the University of Virginia. Do you think SEIU, UNITE, ANY of those guys want to come in to a right to work for less state, no collective bargaining for state workers, no strike rights for higher ed folks??? Hell no. No one wants to come into Virginia because labor here sucks big time. Repiglican legislature, huge fight here to get Tim Kaine elected. We are the red headed step child of the labor movement-no one BUT CWA wants to give us a shot here. I think that any union should be able to organize anyone they want. It's not like there isn't anyone to organize. Granted CWA is known for organizing the telecom industry and the airlines so I say good for
them. But we want to organize too. We shouldn't have to wait around for SEIU et al to court us. AFSME doesn't even have much going on here in Virginia-it was too tough for them. CWA has given 80,000 state workers a chance to unionize., And for that I say bravo.
Posted by: Jan | Oct 6, 2005 9:37:09 PM
Ben,
Great post!!!
John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C
Posted by: John Foster | Oct 6, 2005 9:38:34 PM
Jan,
SEIU is organizing public and private sector workers in Nevada, Texas, Tennessee, Arizona, Iowa, Louisianna and Georgia, all of which are right to work states. I never said workers should have to wait to form a union. SEIU doesn't currently have anytihng going on in VA, and I don't think there is anything wrong with workers organizing with CWA in VA. But cutting deals with the Indian Casinos in CA where HERE has been waging a long fight to win organizing right for workers that aren't covered by the NLRA is a different story. Here is my point, CWA fought and won card check for Cingular workers. Excellent work. that has allowed them to organize in the south. This is a model of how we can rebuild our strength. SEIU has done the same thing with hospitals and janitors in the south. Specifically Healthcare Corporation of America, Catholic Healthcare West and Tenet hospitals in Nevada and Florida, and janitors working for national contractors like ABM.
This gets completely undercut when a union with no long term plan goes and organizes a hospital, or a telecom shop, or a casino somewhere. The janitors in Houston would have never won organizing rights without the support, and joint collective action, of janitors working for the same companies in Los Angeles, Chicago, Pittsburg, New York etc.
Jan, I respect you and your coworkers and have no problem with you being in CWA, but I ask you this: If having a union with an industrial focus winnning organizing rights is good for cingular workers, why isn't it good for healthcare workers and casino workers? And if it is good for them, how do you justify CWA obstructing the same sort of program for healthcare and gaming workers?
Posted by: Ben | Oct 6, 2005 10:50:42 PM
There is more logic to the way many of these unions are going than you may think. I have spent more time than I want to think about dealing with how the BLS is changing how it clustering industries together as it shifts from SIC to NAIC codes as I try to identify which company industry for my organizing and outsourcing research. And in the latest shift it just happens to be the case that the film and broadcast industry was shifted into the communications and IT "NAIC." So in fact SAG, AFTRA, IATSE, and CWA would all be considered to be organizing in the same industry under the NAIC.
On the other hand, the retail food industry, which used to be considered part of the retail sector, is now considered part of the hospitality sector, so it makes sense that UNITE HERE would be the appropriate union to organize food service workers. So unions on both sides of the split are being more logical than critics are arguing.
Posted by: Kate Bronfenbrenner | Oct 6, 2005 10:53:08 PM
I think it's a stretch to say that the ICC is a pay-off the CWA. Really. Having some familiarity with the industry, I'd say that it is a fantasy to suggest that unions like the Screen Actors Guild or Writers Guild are somehow prey waiting for CWA to pounce. I think it makes complete sense: a few years ago, I started something called the Creators Federation which was aimed at bringing together all these unions that deal with a converging information industry. Certainly, CWA, the important player in the voice distribution business (i.e., wired phones and wireless) needs to work closely with SAG etc--the owners are all the same partly due to technological covergence.
If anyone has more interest in this, you can go to www.creatorsfederation.org and read the strategic power analysis that I wrote and published earlier this year.
Posted by: Tasini | Oct 7, 2005 8:36:27 AM
Despite what the anti-CWA partisan said in an earlier thread, the entertainment/media coordinating committee is an obvious good first step in making the AFL a better oganization. The CTW unions should all take a bow for their role in getting the AFL to adopt/develop/create the concept.
Ben, the CWA has struck Verizon over organizing agreements for Verizion Wireless. Yes, those strikes involved other issues, and yes card check at Verizon Wireless has elluded the CWA so far. But card check at Wachenhut or Cintas has elluded SEIU and UNITE-HERE too. Let's hope all three unions keep plugging away.
And, yes, the CWA should be ashamed of the whole hotel organizing garbage. But, I've never seen anyone explain why unions should keep their money in the Amalgamated Bank. I know, it is a "union bank," but is that a good thing? William Z. Foster noted that the AFL's involvement in insurance was unseemly; still probably true today--look at ULLICO's most recent scandal from a few years back. I'm open to being convinced on Amalgated Bank, but for now my "What Would Foster Do?" instinct is telling me it is a bad idea.
Posted by: Ralph | Oct 7, 2005 11:06:46 AM
From Kate: "I have spent more time than I want to think about dealing with how the BLS is changing how it clustering industries together as it shifts from SIC to NAIC codes as I try to identify which company industry for my organizing and outsourcing research."
I'm sure this sentence is in English, but not in any dialect I recognize. Can some more intelligent person than I please translate the acronyms into words? Thanks for your help! Or, as we say in the labor movement, TFYH!
Posted by: Jargon Watch | Oct 7, 2005 11:09:41 AM
BLS: bureau of labor statisics
SIC: Standard Industrial Classification
NAIC: North American industry Classification
The codes are just a way of grouping job classifications--it's mind-numbing to read.
Posted by: Tasini | Oct 7, 2005 11:25:52 AM
Sorry, it was late at night and I should have translated. But it is how the government is clustering jobs and industries and because of the link between cable, phone, wireless, broadcasting, and film they shifted occupations and industries that formerly were in categories under headings like entertainment and fine arts and shifted them to communications and information technology. It was all about changing numbers but it did fit the discussion that you were all having.
Posted by: Kate Bronfenbrenner | Oct 7, 2005 12:03:41 PM
I'm the person who posted the first post about the AFL-CIO and the CWA. Reading over this discussion I see where I went wrong.
I agree with the brother who said that there is nothing wrong with the CWA becoming the arts and entertainment union if they will go and do it. There are so many sectors where labor has no strategy that if each major union will take responsibility for one or more and go and do it, thats what we need. No other major union is doing arts and entertainment so why shouldn't it be the CWA? But as the brother said that shouldn't mean dabbling a bit in it while also dabbling in a million other things.
Posted by: is this reform? | Oct 7, 2005 1:40:08 PM
Uh... does anybody care about Solidarity Charters? or is it just me?
Am I wrong or did NOTHING happen on this at the Executive Council meeting?
Posted by: state fed staffer | Oct 7, 2005 4:58:16 PM
As far as I know,nothing happened on Solidarity Charters.
Posted by: Tasini | Oct 7, 2005 5:28:57 PM
Ben et al-I'm against raiding. But I also don't think that a union can say "OK, we have dibs on all the Indian Casinos in the world". No other union but ours can organize them. Never mind that it could take 10 years in the meantime workers have nothing. I am probably crazy to say this but let's say SEIU has a heavy amount of local organizers on the ground out west. CWA has folks in the south. Why can't both unions work TOGETHER to organize casino workers? I think the goal-which we all have forgotten-is the get the people unionized- by any means necessary. I understand it is all very political within the union movement but hey WE NEED members to survive and gain real political power.
CWA is working hard to get Verizon Wireless folks organized. Last I heard Morty Bahr, in his retirement-was helping in this effort.
All the unions are trying hard, working hard, getting beat up by the corporations. But we're still standing. And pulling ourselves up by those worn out boot straps. I have to buy some new straps because mine are so worn out from constant use!! (Joke)
Posted by: Jan | Oct 8, 2005 12:39:13 PM
Jan,
just to clarify, SEIU isn't organizing gaming, UNITE HERE is. As far as cooperation, I just don't see the point in organizing workers into different organizations and creating obstacles to their working together, and the saying let's cooperate. Cooperation makes sense where workers are already organized but as far as new organzing, I don't see what benefit there could possibly be. To be clear, the reason CWA organized indian casinos in CA had nothing to do with the number of organizers either union had, CWA "won" by agreeing to a shitty contract with the boss to keep UNITE HERE out. In fact, both unions had organizers on the ground. I have friends whoe worked for HERE who were beaten up by casino security guards while CWA organizers watched on. There is nothing noble about this. HERE did years of work to gaurantee those workers would have organizing rights, and CWA swept in, cut a deal with the boss and got some dues money. No level of "cooperation" can overcome that ugly fact. as far as organizing the south, Casino workers in Mississippi won card check because HERE members struck in atlantic city and they had an army of organizers on the ground there. Katrina slowed thigns down, but they will be back. Where are these casino workers begging to organize a union and waiting for UNITE HERE to show up?
Look, if a worker from Verizon called UNITE HERE, what would you recommend they do? Should they launch a small organizing campaign at one shop, or should they refer that worker to CWA to be part of the bigger plan at verizon? And again I ask you, would it be okay for any union other than CWA to show up and try to organized non union Cingular workers? What if they got the boss on their side by agreeing to a substandard contract? I'd really appreciate if you'd answer these two questions. I want to know if what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Posted by: Ben | Oct 8, 2005 1:29:29 PM
Ben,
Being a member of CWA and a worker of VZ in the Northeast, I can tell you that no one in CWA (VZ employees) would want UNITE-HERE repping them.Are we as unions now restricted to industries or, sectors of workers?
I thought the goal of unon was to organize workers, not declare certain industries off limits.
As far as CWA organizers watching UNITE-HERE organizers getting beat up, tell me where and when.
As far as the answer to your questions if UNITE-HERE could organize cingular workers, why shouldnt they? No one "owns" workers or the right to organize certain industries. You guys are missing the point.
Organize the worker first, then decide on affliation. We have 8% of the workforce, not 80.
Just so you know, there are workers at VZ who are represented by IBEW. They seem to be able to co-exsist peacefully and function well when contract and strike time comes.
Why are you afraid of competition? Or, do you think you know those workers better? If you do, what is the problem with your union organizing them?
If you union was indeed better at knowing and organizing these workers, CWA or indeed, any union would have no chance of winning.
Posted by: jim | Oct 12, 2005 1:29:11 PM
Jim,
Thanks for responding...
>Being a member of CWA and a worker of VZ in the Northeast, I >can tell you that no one in CWA (VZ employees) would want >UNITE-HERE repping them.
Why is it that you wouldn't want UNITE-HERE, or any other union for that matter, repping you? Is it because they don't have a history, membership or plan for the telecom industry? Or some other reason. I'm curious what you're reasoning is.
>Are we as unions now restricted to industries or, sectors >of workers?
Ultimately that's a decision for you and your coworkers to make. What's the best way to spend your dues dollars. Is it better to organize a casino here, a hospital there, and some city workers over there, or is it better to devote those resources to making Verizon a wall to wall union company with a top notch contract. My union has, and always will be a healthcare workers union. We're the oldest healthcare union in the country, and as part of SEIU part of the largest healthcare union in the country. Our mission is to organize every healthcare worker in CA and assist healthcare workers in other parts of the country to organize in order to build power to changes the lives of healthcare workers, their patients and their families. So yes, we are "limited" if you will, but it has resulted in the largest organizing successes in the country, and the best contracts in the healthcare industry.
>I thought the goal of unon was to organize workers, not declare certain industries off limits.
See above, and also, the debate is about how best to organize workers on a large enough scale to reverse the slide that labor has been in for the last 20 + years.
>As far as CWA organizers watching UNITE-HERE organizers >getting beat up, tell me where and when.
About 5 or 6 years ago now, after HERE had fought and won organizing rights for tribal casinos in California. It happened at the Casinos. But far worse than what was done to the organizers was the crappy contract they settled with the boss, far below the standards HERE won at other tribal casinos in the state.
>As far as the answer to your questions if UNITE-HERE could >organize cingular workers, why shouldnt they? No one "owns" >workers or the right to organize cerain industries.
And if they "organize" these workers by cutting a deal with Cingular that undercuts the CWA contract that is still okay?
>You guys are missing the point.
>Organize the worker first, then decide on affliation. We >have 8% of the workforce, not 80.
While we may disagree on the point, I am not missing it. As you surely know, organizing first then deciding affiliation is the exact opposite of how it really works. Once organized, workers are not given the option of who to affiliate with. That would be much better than how it works. But, if we were to follow your argument, and a group of organized healthcare workers made a decision that would rather join the overwhelming majority of other healthcare workers in CA, my union would be accused of raiding. As far as the 8% argument, again the debate is about how we can be most successful in organizing the 90% of workers who don't have unions. CWA's biggest successes have come from using their power in an industry to bargain for the rights to organize. (Cingular) they organized many more workers that way than they would have by going from random shop to random shop. It worked very well, so why do defneders of CWA insist on its right to interfere with other workers trying to pursue the same strategy?
>Why are you afraid of competition? Or, do you think you >know those workers better? If you do, what is the problem >with your union organizing them?
>If you union was indeed better at knowing and organizing >these workers, CWA or indeed, any union would have no >chance of winning.
Jim, i don't see unions as insurance companies that compete with each other. I believe unions should be social movements for workers, so yes, I do believe healthcare workers know other healthcare workers better than anybody else. But its not competition from other unions that I fear, its the ongoing death of the labor movement. (though, again, your argument about competition is a defacto defense of raiding.)
In my opinion, the failed un-strategy of organzing haphazardly without a plan will not delay our untimely demise.
Posted by: Ben | Oct 12, 2005 7:54:31 PM
Ben,
BTW, I find your responses and arguments well thought out and informative. However,...
>Why is it that you wouldn't want UNITE-HERE, or any other union for that matter, repping you? Is it because they don't have a history, membership or plan for the telecom industry? Or some other reason. I'm curious what you're reasoning is.<
First off, I didnt mean to suggest or imply that UNITE-HERE wasnt a well thought of and respected union. Anyone who works in the greater NYC area can attest to that.
Let me clarify and explain my reasoning.
Just as I wouldnt want an "outside" union coming in and organizing, or trying to organize an already UNIONized shop, I dont see the the harm of trying to organize a NON-unionized shop, or industry.
The key difference for me, and will continue to be, whether that shop, industry, sector, or group has in fact elected representation.Using VZ as an example,it is an entirely closed shop, which would make the argument of U-H coming in and trying to organize a moot point.
If, on the other hand, a company, or group of companies, in a particular industry arent organized, than I dont see the harm in anyone trying to organize them. When they get a group of workers big enough to merit the "dominant" union in the industry coming in and trying to cherry pick, then and only then should there be a discussion of who "gets" what.
For me, it makes no sense, to try and organize a group of workers where there already are unions trying to do so. Sound contradictory? Possibly. I'll explain.
It comes down, for me to 2 things.
1. Are the workers in that specific industry organized?
2. Are their plans by the union in that industry to organize those workers.
The goal for me is simple. No matter how much the staffers and officers of a particular union feel, the unorganized worker should be fair game for anyone. There should be competition for the unorganized workers.
Hell, isnt the goal of labor to organize the unorganized?
Isnt the goal to get the majority of workers unionized?
>About 5 or 6 years ago now, after HERE had fought and won organizing rights for tribal casinos in California. It happened at the Casinos. But far worse than what was done to the organizers was the crappy contract they settled with the boss, far below the standards HERE won at other tribal casinos in the state.<
I know I dont have anything to apologize for, but still, I do apologize for that. I hope that the people that were there from CWA are ashamed of themselves and no longer working for us.
>And if they "organize" these workers by cutting a deal with Cingular that undercuts the CWA contract that is still okay?<
No. it is not okay.
First, there should be an agreement between the unions that there are standards as to what each industry should accept. Defined and spelled out. It will stop mgmt from playing one union against another, and it will force the unions that are interested in the workers to work for those members.
>While we may disagree on the point, I am not missing it. As you surely know, organizing first then deciding affiliation is the exact opposite of how it really works. Once organized, workers are not given the option of who to affiliate with. That would be much better than how it works. But, if we were to follow your argument, and a group of organized healthcare workers made a decision that would rather join the overwhelming majority of other healthcare workers in CA, my union would be accused of raiding. As far as the 8% argument, again the debate is about how we can be most successful in organizing the 90% of workers who don't have unions. CWA's biggest successes have come from using their power in an industry to bargain for the rights to organize. (Cingular) they organized many more workers that way than they would have by going from random shop to random shop. It worked very well, so why do defneders of CWA insist on its right to interfere with other workers trying to pursue the same strategy?<
Telling me the the way it is doesnt do anything for changing the way it could be.
Again, in "organized" industries, the predominant union should prevail. Only after maybe a contract of say a year.
Look, I know this is heresy but what if we did this. Took all of the orgainzers for all of the unions and combined them into regions or districts, or any other fancy name for parts of the country. Not by union, not by industry, but by region. Turn them loose on the unorgainzed union workers. Tell them they will be given a contract that is industry agreed upon by the union or unions in that industry. After a year the now organized, unionized member will be able to vote on who they want for representation.
Wouldnt that do a number of things, like motivate all the unions to really represent the workers?
Wouldnt that motivate all the organizers to really follow thru and seal the deal?
Wouldnt the unions compete for more workers, not just steal workers from each other, like an ever diminishing share of pie?
>Jim, i don't see unions as insurance companies that compete with each other. I believe unions should be social movements for workers, so yes, I do believe healthcare workers know other healthcare workers better than anybody else. But its not competition from other unions that I fear, its the ongoing death of the labor movement. (though, again, your argument about competition is a defacto defense of raiding.)
In my opinion, the failed un-strategy of organzing haphazardly without a plan will not delay our untimely demise.<
See, that is where we diverge. I do see it as a competition. It should be a competition-- for the UNORGANIZED worker.
We have 2 choices, fight over the crumbs that used to be this labor movement, or change strategies. All this talk of politics, social movements (which I agree with you) are all fine and dandy. Its getting the workers to leverage the power thats always has been the problem.
I know Im gonna catch bs for suggesting that we do away with union specific organizers. But, we need to stop fighting over what we got and get what we need. WE NEED more workers.
You have the same 25 or so major unions fighting over less than 14 million workers. Who is trying to get the other 100 million?
Why cant we all try to get the other 100 million?
Then decide on who is best fitted to represent them?
>
Posted by: jim | Oct 13, 2005 9:13:21 PM
Ben, Jim and all:
Interesting discussion. I think the overall goal should be POWER for the workers' movement. My vote goes to Ben's arguments for achieving more of it.
Posted by: Pete Arsenault | Oct 14, 2005 5:54:25 AM
Ben, Jim and all:
Interesting discussion. I think the overall goal should be POWER for the workers' movement. My vote goes to Ben's arguments for achieving more of it.
Posted by: Pete Arsenault | Oct 14, 2005 5:55:01 AM
I think there's room for pieces of both Jim's and Ben's arguments as we search for a real solution. There is merit in Jim's suggestion that we move toward a "one big union" model of organizing. That's not a new idea -- in fact, it's just about the oldest idea in labor. Maybe the first step along that road is the industry-specific strategy being developed with the CTW unions.
That said, most of that structural change is long-term change, particularly the end outcome of Jim's suggestions. In the meantime, we have existing unions. Those unions have organizers (or at least most of them do). Those organizers have targets. Those targets need a union. How do eliminate the most suffering in the fastest way? We use our existing staff and resources to organize the workers in our industries.
I completely believe that we should be trying to change the labor movement. That's important work. But it's long-term work that doesn't help my neighbor afford health care and food this week. If the long-term work succeeds, it will certainly change the landscape for my neighbor, or maybe her kids or grandkids, and that's a good thing. But right now, we need to get busy organizing. With 98% of the workforce unorganized, it's not as if there are ANY unions who don't have work to do without raiding and jumping industries. There are more workers to organize in my industry than 100 of me could organize in the rest of my lifetime.
It's great to see people debate this stuff, and it's important to remember that the answer is sometimes -- not always, but sometimes -- in the middle.
Posted by: Jazzhead | Oct 14, 2005 2:11:28 PM
Just a note that I should have said "With 92% of the workforce unorganized..." not "98%."
Posted by: Jazzhead | Oct 14, 2005 2:33:39 PM
"There is merit in Jim's suggestion that we move toward a "one big union" model of organizing. That's not a new idea -- in fact, it's just about the oldest idea in labor. Maybe the first step along that road is the industry-specific strategy being developed with the CTW unions."
Well said, Jazzhead.
Posted by: Ty | Oct 14, 2005 8:27:40 PM
