Here’s a run-down of the press conference held just a little while ago. The scene was the Al Dente restaurant just off the main casino area. Double long tables covered with linen table clothes sat in the center of the room. Sitting at the head of the table were UFCW president Joe Hansen (UFCW) and Teamsters president Jim Hoffa. They were flanked on their right by John Wilhelm, President/Hospitality Industry, UNITE-HERE and Bruce Raynor, general president of UNITE-HERE. To their left sat, Laborers President Terry O’Sullivan, SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger and SEIU President Andy Stern.
They had just come from a Executive Committee meeting where two proposals had been debated: the Teamsters proposal, which suggested a number of changes including the controversial idea of returning 50 percent rebate of dues paid to the AFL-CIO back to the affiliated unions to invest in organizing efforts; and the proposal advanced by AFL-CIO president John Sweeney to increase the amount of money spent on politics by $47 million. The Teamsters proposal garnered 40 percent of the vote (unions vote based on their size) and, thus, failed. The same 40 percent vote was cast against Sweeney’s proposal. Now, both proposals go before the full Executive Council this afternoon (the Executive Committee is a subset of the full council and includes the major unions).
Hoffa read a statement of principles which I’ve posted. I’ve also posted a rough transcript of the press conference. By the way, Sweeny was supposed to hold a press conference at 1:15 but when he didn’t show up, the entire press corps moved quickly to the Al Dente (a side note: there have been far more press people at this AFL-CIO meeting than any previous ones…well, probably because this time there was some actual debate to cover, rather than pre-packaged press releases).
Here are a few observations: I’m told the UAW voted for the Teamsters rebate proposal—which was a breakthrough because the UAW had not been publicly supporting it. While some may view this as a defeat—and certainly this group of dissenters was not victorious today—if I were John Sweeney, I’d be a bit concerned. There is a long time between this meeting and the AFL-CIO convention in July. Where SEIU stood alone in November, a 40 percent bloc is significant this far out from the convention. Look for a careful campaign to start today to persuade other unions to back either part or all of the Teamsters’ proposals.
After you've read the materials, I'd like to hear what you think about where the debate stands. Post a comment.
So, the two proposals go to the full Executive Council for another debate and vote?
Posted by: curious2 | March 02, 2005 at 07:55 PM
What's going on with the Carpenters? My understanding was that they came back into the AFL-CIO at the urging of the NUP to be able to vote for these types of reform? Is it a strategic move to keep McCarron in the background because he is a controversial figure, or are they no longer on board?
Posted by: Ben | March 02, 2005 at 08:39 PM
It's not clear that the proposal will come before the Executive Council at this meeting. They certainly may come to the convention in July
Posted by: JT | March 02, 2005 at 08:39 PM
Could the UAW vote have been "bought" by the rebate? They gave up Local 3030 - Graphic Artists Guild - over chump change, so voting to get a rebate may have swayed them.
Posted by: joe h | March 02, 2005 at 08:59 PM
I think you have to give Stern credit for starting this debate. However, the "where SEIU stood alone in November" part misses the real action on the policy proposals. It probably should read "Where Jim Hoffa stood alone in December..." The rebate is the central part of the Hoffa plan. I don't think this is bad. And I think that somewhere between Sweeney's rebate and Hoffa's there might be a deal that could work. But I fear deeply that the internationals can't be trusted to do the organizing rather than spend the money on servicing or whatever. And making 15 supernationals doesn't solve that problem. Accountability to elected leaders and then to the members for how this money is used is key.
FYI Carpenters are not at the full AFL table, but I believe they are still in the Building Trades division. This is odd, but necessary for the smooth functioning of the trades is my understanding.
Posted by: benton | March 02, 2005 at 09:14 PM
I'm not sure that you are correct on the Carpenters. They withdrew from the AFL several years ago but continued to be on the Building Trades Council, but I believe they returned to full membership earlier this year...
Posted by: Ben | March 02, 2005 at 10:03 PM
The Carpenters are still in the BCTD, made noises about returning to the AFL last fall, but weren't able to come to an agreement on the back per cap that they owed -- so they're not in the AFL at this point.
Posted by: Trapper John | March 02, 2005 at 10:48 PM
Yes, there will be a compromise. More money for organizing? SEIU - in the midwest anyway - can organize (sometimes) but cannot service, does not educate, and is not democratic. And SEIU sweetheart deals don't benefit members... we're so desperate that good folks think Andy Stern is a rebel. Sheee-it.
But throwing more money at external organizing when the membership isn't organized will not change anything.
Posted by: joe h | March 03, 2005 at 12:18 AM
Do you have any examples to back this up? I think your full of it.
Posted by: Ben | March 03, 2005 at 04:50 AM
I hate to be relentlessly negative. I really do. But what does this useless exercise in Vegas offer us? Nothing whatsoever. No leadership is to be found anywhere here -- not even with threats to break up the AFL-CIO; which would frankly be a step forward, the situation is so bloody awful.
Re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic, this is.
Maybe the Republicrats will do us all a big favor now, and outlaw unions finally: and put this crew -- and us -- out of our misery.
I'll just wait for the collapse and revolution, myself...
Posted by: Comandante Gringo | March 03, 2005 at 07:19 AM
Yes, there will be a compromise.
Example: union staff compromise
But throwing more money at external organizing when the membership isn't organized will not change anything.
Example: If the membership were active and organized and unions were part of the community we wouldn't be in trouble. See Richard Hurd's article on the failure of organizing, by which he means the dumbing down of the 'organizing model' from organizing the organized & activating locals to a single focus on getting new members
But then again I may be full of it and you may be working for Big Andy.
Posted by: joe h | March 03, 2005 at 10:54 AM
Hey -- ever heard of this strange concept called... leadership?
Posted by: Comandante Gringo | March 07, 2005 at 07:44 PM