Screeners A Step Closer To Bargaining Rights

    It just snowed in New York. Seriously. Wild flurries. Nothing will stick but, hey, it was amazing--first time this winter and it's January 10th. I thought Mark McGwire would be in the Hall of Fame before it snowed. I gather this will be the reaction of future generations unless we get this global warming thing under control. But, I digress...on to other topics.

    This escaped my notice and thanks to a reader who slapped me upside the head and woke me up. Slipped into the House bill that adopted the 9/11 Commission recommendations was a provision that granted union bargaining rights to the 43,000 security screeners who work for the Transportation Department. Actually, the extension of the rights came through a very modest change, relatively speaking--the bill repealed a footnote in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), which allowed the TSA Administrator to deny screeners col­lective bargaining, civil service, and whistleblower protections. In fact, the TSA Administrator at the time, James Loy,  exercised that authority in 2003, and banned bargaining rights for the screeners, claiming that their jobs were a matter of national security and, therefore, should be exempted from collective bargaining.

    Not that you cared about the details but it's fascinating to me (get a life you might say) how such obscure legislative language can be used to screw thousands of people. I guess Congressional Republicans have made a science out of that process.

    Congrats to the American Federation of Government Employees for sticking with this campaign for more than five years. The bill still has to pass the Senate to become law--and that's not a foregone conclusion. According to GovExec.com, Sen, Joe Lieberman, the chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, supports granting the screeners collective bargaining rights. And the guy in the White House, who is more interested in sending more men and women to a pointless slaughter, will oppose the provision--but it's not clear if he will veto the bill over it.

    And, then, comes the hard work--organizing the workers.

Labor Leading Policy Debates

    I've always thought that there is no issue in our society that labor should not be involved in. Global warming? Obviously. The war? Think of the economic damage, not to mention the number of working class people who are spilling their blood in Iraq. I'd be interested in hearing if you think there is a single issue labor shouldn't touch (I'm going to guess that a few folks are going to say abortion or guns).

    I raise this because a reader sent along (thank you!) a link to a story in the Los Angeles Times from the other day which describes an internal memo written for L.A. labor that argues that unions should be at the forefront of policy debates.

Los Angeles unions enjoy a decided "brand advantage" over corporations among city voters, and the labor movement should use that popularity to advance "union-led solutions" to key public policy issues in 2007, a memo written by top labor strategists says.

The two-page memo, which was obtained by The Times, argues for broader, more straightforward engagement on policy issues than many unions have undertaken in the past. Some labor leaders prefer to focus on their own contract issues,  and even those who are active in politics often soft-pedal the "union" label.

    To which I say: duh.This has been one of our weaknesses, historically: too many labor leaders see their job as simply dealing with what happens between the walls or within the four corners of the workplace. In fact, workers' lives are much more complex and it's impossible to build a wall that separates what happens at work from what people go through the rest of their lives. in the earlier part of the labor movement's history, back in the old says of the 20th Century, there was far more involvement by unions in the complete life of its members--for the better, I'd say.

    The memo also shows that, quite to the contrary of some of the conventional wisdom that focuses on labor's decline, a lot of people have very positive feelings about unions.

The memo relies heavily on public opinion research conducted by a Democratic pollster, David Binder, including a survey of 800 city voters last fall. The document was written by three veteran strategists, John Hein, Bob Cherry and Don Attore, all of whom have retired from the political operation of the California Teachers Assn. The three work closely with Working Californians, a nonprofit research and advocacy group.

"There is a significant opportunity for organized labor in Los Angeles," the memo says. "In particular, we'd highlight these factors: unions' fundamentally positive image and 'brand advantage' over business corporations; the overlap between union priorities and the key concerns of voters across the electorate in L.A., and the opportunity to expand public understanding of the connection between local government and the full range of quality-of-life issues."

    And...

Binder's poll found that unions have more public support in Los Angeles than in other areas of the state and country. Among city voters surveyed, 55% agreed that "without unions, there would be no middle-class left in America."

Reflecting the labor movement's influence in city politics, the memo argues for talking up local government's ability to deal with issues such as the economy, healthcare and the environment, which generally are considered federal and state matters.

The memo calls "for a public education campaign focused on union-led solutions to the quality-of-life issues that Los Angeles voters regard as most important." The memo suggests that such a campaign be conducted before 2008, when state and national election campaigns will probably consume union energy.

    So, tell me, what issue, if any, should labor not touch?

On NY's McLaughlin

    It's not been a pretty couple of days here for New York labor. It is true that Brian McLaughlin deserves the presumption of being innocent until proven guilty of the corruption charges leveled against him yesterday. But, what really needs to be looked at is how we got here in the first place.

    Frankly, even if you put aside the corruption charges (and, if they are true, it is disgusting) I always found it strange that Brian, who I think was well-liked in the city and thought of as someone who worked the streets for every union, could hold down jobs as the head of the city's central labor council and as a state assemblyman--at the same time. How can you do justice to either job--to the members of labor unions and/or the constituents who elected you to the Assembly?

    Which is why I think Ed Ott, who is the interim executive director of the Council, and Denis Hughes, the president of the state AFL-CIO, are right on the mark with their comments in today's New York Times piece:

“We also want to have some ethical practices and procedures that make some sense and have some real teeth,” said Mr. Hughes, who has pushed for ethics seminars for state and city union leaders.

Mr. Hughes declared that no future head of the labor council should simultaneously hold a political office. “This job requires full attention from that individual,” Mr. Hughes said. “You can’t have two full-time jobs and expect to get it done.”

He said the council needed a strategic plan. “We have to look at what exactly is our mission,” he said. “Our members are losing economic security. Many workers can’t afford to live in the five boroughs any more in ways we were able to a generation ago. We have to help fix our education system, supporting the needs of students as well as the teachers.”

    Ott adds:

“There is not a culture of organizing at the center of the labor movement in New York City,” he said. “It’s left to individual unions. We have to get union leaders and union members thinking all the time about organizing.”

    I agree with both of them. Though there should have been a strategic organizing plan years ago and there should have been louder questions asked about how union leaders can hold multiple jobs (and those questions should now be asked of all union leaders in the city and state), the silver-lining in this chapter may be that it shakes up a movement so hard that something good arises out of what is now a black eye. Maybe.

More On The NLCC

    So, for the real gluttons out there, I've got the exchange of letters that lead to the creation of the National Labor Coordinating Committee. Anna Burger, chair of Change To Win, sent a letter to John Sweeney on April 11th. Sweeney replied a week later. And here you can also see the outline of the NLCC so that you can make your own judgement about where this thing is going.

CTW Raises A Curtain

    There's been a lot of speculation and anticipation and criticism, all rolled into one, about the plans of Change To Win. Well, wait no longer for the first shot out of the box.

    This coming week, CTW will launch its campaign--previously discussed--called "Make Work Pay. And you can be the first one to see the national television ad that will begin running to spotlight the campaign.

    The basic point of the campaign is to highlight the inability of millions of people to make ends meet on a paycheck. In the press release for the campaign, CTW says "a week of organizing activities in nearly 40 cities across the country kicks off the permanent campaign, with events at locations ranging from construction sites in New York City, to the steps of the county Courthouse in Norristown, PA, to ports in Seattle, Miami and Los Angeles, to Wal-Marts throughout the nation.

     Clearly, the CTW strategy is focused on jobs that are not subject to the pressures of off-shoring.

“There are millions of jobs in this country that can’t be moved overseas,” said Anna Burger, Chair of Change to Win.  “They include the people who heal the sick and comfort the elderly, who harvest and serve our food, and build and clean and protect our offices and homes.  These men and women work hard and play by the rules but for too many the American Dream is something they see only on TV.”

    We will have to see how those rallies unfold and what the strategy is that follows after the rallies--I like rallies because, well, the good ones have energy and passion BUT rallies are only good if they are part of bigger piece...and, too often, the rallies aren't followed up with much in the way of a substantive campaign to organize people.

    But, hope springs eternal. Let's see what happens.

 

Solidarity Charters Doomed?

    I have been optimistic since last summer that the two federations would find some way to work with each other. And when John Sweeney rolled out the general concept of Solidarity Charters, even though the initial proposal had some serious weaknesses that needed to be fought over, it looked like they would provide a good framework for cooperation.

    But, if the AFL-CIO doesn't get off a goofy position by May 1st (a deadline for the Solidarity Charters implementation), the whole concept will go down the tubes--which would be unfortunate. Back in February, I reported on a letter Sweeney sent to State Federations and Central Labor Councils, advising them that the United Farm Workers, which disaffiliated from the AFL-CIO in January, was not eligible to be part of Solidarity Charters--nor would any other union be eligible if it left AFL-CIO from that day on. The position of the AFL-CIO is that only five unions--UFCW, the Teamsters, SEIU, UNITEHERE and the Carpenters--are eligible for Solidarity Charters. 

    At the time, I questioned such an edict. It struck me that it was an attempt by the AFL-CIO to continue its quest to control the reshaping of the labor movement into two federations. From one vantage point, I understand the impulse--as more unions leave the AFL-CIO, it loses money and it is forced to continue to downsize. The Laborers will leave the AFL-CIO quite soon, which will be another hit on the treasury of the AFL-CIO. In fact, the rule about the Farmworkers--which has maybe 25,000 members and certainly is irrelevant to the Federation's finances--is really aimed at the Laborers and other heavyweights who may be pondering life outside the AFL-CIO.

    But, if the AFL-CIO's leadership wants to keep unions inside the AFL-CIO I think the better way to do that is to show the value of the AFL-CIO.

    The point of Solidarity Charters to make it possible to work on labor and political action without regard to federation, because that was better for workers. Since the UFW really only matters in three states, not many AFL-CIO labor councils are going to feel that. I said a couple of months ago that it was smart for John Sweeney to agree to the Solidarity Charters. It's time to eliminate the UFW rule and let Solidarity Charters apply across the board.

Machinists Versus UAW?

    Hmmm...this is curious and bizarre. If you go to to website of the Machinists, you find this curious bit of news:

Organizing Drive Gears Up at Alabama Mercedes Plant

March 16, 2006 - Fair wages, a voice at work and decent benefits are the foundations for a good job anywhere in the United States. Increasingly, however, these benefits are only available to union members with access to collective bargaining rights.

In Tuscaloosa, Alabama, nearly 3,000 workers at a state-of-the-art Mercedes-Benz facility are looking forward to joining those ranks as an IAM organizing campaign there gathers steam.

    Huh? The Machinists have gotten into the business of organizing auto companies? As far as I know today, the UAW doesn't know about this. And I doubt that folks in Detroit are going to be very happy about this, particularly if Tom Buffenbarger (the president of the machinists) didn't bother to let UAW prez Ron Gettlefinger know about this ahead of time.

    But, the larger question is: what the heck to the machinists know about the auto industry--or about organizing for that matter? I get that the machinists, which has been hammered lately since so much of its membership is based in the airline industry, has to figure out how to expand its membership. And it is true that the machinists were supposed to be part of Heavy Metal--the once-proposed merger between them, the UAW and the steelworkers (a merger that failed primarily because Buffenbarger, the youngest of the potential leaders, didn't want to give up the top job, which he would likely have had to, at least initially, since he would have hailed from the smallest of the three unions).

    But, this feels like a campaign with no long-term strategy. Admittedly, I speak both as a UAW member and someone who has been...ahem...perplexed by Buffenbarger's penchant for writing curious letters (you might want to refresh yourself on his summer writings). Still, there's some explaining to do here. And perhaps some nasty times ahead between the two unions. John Sweeney, get your mediation skills ready.

    See the whole press release here.

Make Work Pay

    Okay, so I'm all for the idea of making work pay. That's the slogan of the Change To Win campaign unveiled in Las Vegas yesterday. Since I couldn't get there, I'm going to piece this together over the next few days.

    The press statement of CTW says this:

The seven-union Change to Win federation today unveiled its new campaign to unite millions of workers across the country in an effort to raise living standards and improve the quality of life for American workers. With 2,000 organizers meeting in Las Vegas for the federation’s first organizing convention, Change to Win leaders announced that the Make Work Pay! campaign will launch on the week of April 24 with actions targeting major industries in more than 35 cities.

“The Make Work Pay! campaign is about ensuring that millions of taxpayers who are working harder and longer with less to show for it are able to be part of the American middle class,” said Anna Burger, Chair of Change to Win.” She added “We are fighting so that individuals who work hard can earn paychecks that actually support families; receive affordable health care, have the chance to give their children a better life and count on a secure retirement.

“We are going to reach out to those workers who are not yet organized and to the members of the public that understand and support the notion that this country can’t exist without a vibrant middle class,” Burger said. “This campaign will empower the millions of workers to help them effect real change to make work pay.”

    Seems like this is kind of a living wage campaign under a union banner. No objection to the idea ,though, personally, I wonder why, if the goal is to try to reach out to millions of unorganized workers, the big campaign isn't simply Medicare For All? Wouldn't an audience of 45 million uninsured Americans be about as big as you'd hope to get? Wouldn't mass action in 35 cities, shutting down streets, over health insurance galvanize a ton of people?

    The question is: how is this week of April 24th going to be done? Is it rallies, with follow through, or just rallies that make everyone feel good and just--but that don't lead anywhere? Obviously, I'm hopeful that, with the talent CTW has pulled together and the emphasis on a streamlined organization focused on organizing, we'll see something new and dymanic. But...the jury is still out.

    But, it is clear that this is one measuring stick to begin evaluating what CTW will do that's different than the AFL-CIO--either in strategy and/or results.

The Name Isn't Everything

    I've been asked by a lot of people about my opinion of the AFL-CIO's new blog. My answer has been: what blog?

    I encourage more labor blogs to get started. But, the point of a blog is to create conversation and debate. In some ways, the AFL-CIO is doing precisely what its culture dictates: pretend like you're doing soemthing innovative and different without really doing anything different. It's too much p.r. and spin, with nothing new.

    The space the AFL-CIO created that it labels "blog" appears to me to be no different than the rest of the site: it's simply offering information (which is fine) but it prevents debate--a long-time hallmark of the AFL-CIO's culture that pre-dates the Sweeney Administration. No one can post comments. You're simply asked to absorb more propoganda and be interested in a one-way conversation.

    I imagine there was some concern that allowing open debate would draw anti-union voices and some weird stuff. That's life and you have to be adults about criticism. In this space, there's been a lot of criticism of my views and even some personal attacks. I can report that I am still alive. And the rationale posters (which also can mean people using very passionate and heated language) end up crowding out the disruptive people.

    The fact is the web is precisely about decentralization and opening up the process. So, with due respect, the AFL-CIO "blog" is a disappointment.

    My prediction: the AFL-CIO's "blog" will quickly be forgotten, will attract no interest from people the AFL-CIO should be appealing to (i.e., non-union workers and/or potential allies) and offer very little new to the debate about the future of our movement.

    It isn't too late, though.  Save yourselves. Open up the comments section.

AFL Discriminates Against UFW

    This story makes no sense to me. When the AFL-CIO announced the concept of Solidarity Charters, I thought it was a good idea once the kinks got worked out with the Change To Win federation. It was a strong step towards realizing that everyone needed to figure out how to work together, and that, frankly, it was entirely irrelevant what bureaucratic structures each international union chose to be part of.

    But, there's a new twist. In a January 30th letter written to State Federations and Central Labor Councils, John Sweeney says that the United Farm Workers, which disaffiliated from the AFL-CIO last month, was not eligible to be part of Solidarity Charters--nor would any other union that leaves the AFL-CIO from this day on. Here's the main part of the letter:

As you know, the United Fram Workers union recently notified me of the union's decision to disaffiliate from the AFL-CIO. This was an extremely disappointing development, particularly given the Federation's long history and tradition with the UFW and the considerable support--financial and otherwise--that the AFL-CIO has provided to the UFW in its struggles. My letter to UFW President Arturo Rodriquez concerning the union's decision to disaffiliate is attached.

Since the disaffiliation, questions have been raised about whether locals of the UFW are eligible to remain affiliated with state federations and central labor councils through Solidarity Charters. Please be advised that the Solidarity Charter program authorized by the AFL-CIO Executive Council applies to five unions: the UFCW, the Teamsters, SEIU, UNITEHERE and the Carpenters. Eligibility for Solidarity Charters is limited to locals of these unions. Local of the UFW or of other unions not affiliated with the national AFL-CIO are not eligible to affiliate with state federations or central labor councils through Solidarity Charters or other means.

    Huh? What is the point of this edict? I can only surmise that the thinking is two-fold. First, someone might believe that by keeping Solidarity Charters limited to the unions that originally left the AFL-CIO, other unions might think twice before joining Change To Win if they are concerned about not being able to participate in the AFL-CIO local bodies. Second, it's not too far down the road to see the Change To Win federation becoming larger than the AFL-CIO--the Laborers are leaving sooner rather than later and other unions are discussing the same option (don't you think that the creation of a competing building trades structure is a omen that other construction unions are sniffing in the direction of Change To Win?); perhaps there is a desire to limit the influence of Change To Win unions inside the local labor councils.

    Which makes zero sense. Does anyone at 16th Street really believe that a union is going to stay in the AFL-CIO simply because it won't be able to get a Solidarity Charter? And wasn't the point of Solidarity Charters to make it possible to work on labor and political action without regard to federation, because that was better for workers?

    Blowing off the UFW is one thing--not many AFL-CIO labor councils are going to feel that. But, it's hard to imagine this will stand once the Laborers jump ship--AFL-CIO councils will feel the absence of the Laborers and they will either squawk about the discrimination or ignore the AFL-CIO edicts from Washington, D.C..

    It was smart for John Sweeney to agree to the Solidarity Charters and he was able to show flexibility by agreeing to Change To Win's requests to make changes to the original plan. I hope he sees that this current discrimination isn't workable--and isn't advisable.