Sweeney Meets the Press: Unanswered Questions

    I'm troubled after the teleconference John Sweeney held yesterday with the press. It's not that the whole affair lasted just 30 minutes (and we had to provide our own coffee, doughnuts and Scotch), which included John's opening statement and, then, a rush to squeeze in questions before, poof, he had to run before anyone really got into the meat of the document, "Winning for Working Families." (I'll refer to it as WWF...its bulk does remind one of the World Wrestling Federation)

    It's that the document raises more questions than it answers. The media reports describing the press conference and the new document focused almost entirely on the AFL-CIO's financial situation (see The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times), the looming layoffs and the on-going power struggle for leadership of the Federation. Certainly, the AFL-CIO's financial situation is worrisome (John, in answer to a question by the Washington Post's Tom Edsall, called reports on "the web" that described the Federation's finances, "rumors...ridiculous and irresponsible"...I smiled). But, there are a lot of questions to ask beyond those issues (and, in fairness to the press, the WWF report was sent just before the tele-conference and there wasn't  much time given to raise questions).

    But, we've got another chance. The folks at the AFL-CIO press office said we could submit additional written questions. So, below are my Top Ten that I had wanted to ask (I have about fifty but whittled them down to focus on the key ones)--with a little editorializing thrown in. I'm going to send them to John and any answers will be posted here. If you have any additional ones, post your own through the COMMENTS and I'll see if we can get them answered (let's try to be nice, now).

    An observation: these questions might be tough but are not meant to be disrespectful or hostile. I think John Sweeney is a decent man--but we're in deep shit and we have to put out tough questions to try to get to the bottom of our crisis and turn this ship around. Or it's over.

1. WWF says, "The rebuilt political program grew more effective." Oooppppsss...did the Republicans yesterday resign the presidency, give up a larger Senate majority than it has had in several decades, and make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House? Seriously, the numbers showing an increase in the percentage of union members who vote (and, I've heard some people express skepticism about those numbers) belies the fact that we are in far worse shape, politically, than when the Sweeney Administration took over a decade ago.

    Question: If we're going to spend money on politics, does it make sense to say "more of the same?"

2. On organizing, WWF states that, in the face of fierce opposition, "despite these odds, nearly a million workers joined AFL-CIO unions in 1996 through 2004." Question: How many of those new workers were already in independent unions that merged or affiliated with AFL-CIO union? In other words, how many of the one million are truly workers newly organized into unions?

3. Here are three related points made in the WWF: "The resources that fuel our federation represent only 1 percent of the dollars our members pay in dues" (page 5) and "An investment in organizing of 30 percent from AFL-CIO affiliated unions would result in annual resources for organizing of $500 million per year from the national union level alone" (page 7) and "where unions have met the 30 percent standard and worked to develop strategic capacity for organizing...they have made a real difference in workers' lives." (page 7).

    Deep breath. Okay, John is right--there is a ton of money out there to organize with. Money is not the issue. Desire to organize is the issue. And your question is?: how many unions have actually invested the 30 percent standard? I'll bet John one hundred dollars right here that you can count them all on one hand (and, before I pay up, I want documented proof, with detailed budgets). Question: what makes you think that, all of a sudden, unions that have not moved 30 percent of their resources into organizing will now do so?

    The point is that the $500 million is just an empty rhetorical pipe-dream--unless the Federation changes the way it operates and comes up with a broad strategic plan that the international affiliates are REQUIRED to implement. Oh, I know, there have been all sorts of screams and moans about "union democracy" and "independence" whenever someone suggests that international unions be forced to behave as a unified movement. Well, yes, democracy is important--but it won't mean a damn if the movement obliterates itself, partly by throwing around high-minded slogans that mask a "this is my sandbox and I'm going to do whatever I feel in it."

4. During your administration, you initiated campaigns in Maritime, Apples, Strawberries, HOTROC (New Orleans hotels), BTOP (Las Vegas Building trades) , Kelly Air Force base in TX, and others. Weren't all those failures? And, if so, why? There is nothing wrong with failing--but if we don't honestly assess why those campaigns failed, all the new money in the world, thrown into future campaigns, may be just a waste of resources.

5.  You claim you are spending 24% of budget on organizing. Is that what you call "program" budget or overall budget?   In any case could you please break down where that money went as far as money for campaigns, staff, the Organizing Institute and Voice at Work?

6.  Would you say the Voice at Work program is a success or a failure? Related question: since the Employee Free Choice Act has no chance of passing anytime soon (even if, by some miracle, the Democrats recaptured Congress, it would never have the 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate...oh, I forgot, Republicans are now against filibusters), should we keep investing resources and time in this piece of legislation? Again, good people are working hard on V@W but isn't it time to assess the pros and cons simply to learn if we want to do more of the same?

7.  You mention union summer but isn't it true that you have scaled it back from over 1000 students the first year to less than 150 now? Why?

8.  Question: Can you name one major organizing campaign where the AFL support made a difference between winning and losing?  Not a single unit but a strategic, industry or as you like to say "sector campaigns" such as all hotels in New Orleans. Again, I ask this question for a simple reason: we need to look very hard at what role the Federation should play, if any, in organizing.

9. Again, on organizing: WWF calls for the creation of a $22.5 million STRATEGIC ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN (the CAPS are in the WWF, I suppose to make clear that we believe in strategy and organizing). According to the proposal the money would be invested based on "tough standards," and doled out partly in the form of rebates based on applications reviewed by a "panel of retired union presidents."

     Question: wasn't there already a strategic organizing fund which already was supposed to work based on "tough" criteria but quickly evolved into giving money to any union that asked? Who are the retired presidents proposed for this panel? And should those retired presidents be from unions that showed a commitment to organizing so they can be capable of evaluating what an effective organizing campaign would be?

10.  How can an entire document, described as a plan for "Uniting and Strengthening the Union Movement," not use the word "China" even once?

That's it for now. Comments and more questions welcome.

Comments

[Info Tech Guy]

Re. Pat 10: China was not mentioned once in "Uniting and Strengthening the Union Movement"? Jeesh! Nor India, I imagine...

IMO if the union movement (AFL-CIO) will not seriously confront the menace to all working Americans -- the broad American middle class-- due to outsourcing and use of imported low-wage foreign "guest workers", the battle is lost. So far, unionists should be very dissatisfied with the way that this issue has been handled. Overall, Democratic pols use this issue in campaigns but they've shown little real commitment to changing the free trade policies and they've taken the union vote for granted. It would be very useful for the union movement to involve itself in a serious public education effort targeting the broad middle class.

[Jock Nash]

Dear Jonathan,

It is truly unfortunate that union leadership, like our current political leadership in Washington, is neither representative nor responsive to the needs of the rank and file.

Today, it is all about retaining power, not exercising it for the greater good.

Thank you for having me on your list.

Best..Jock

[NathanHJ]

These are good questions and as such are probably not going to be answered outside of some internal set of meetings about the future of labor. And maybe not even then.

What I would like to know is what does this proposal, or any proposal really, do to rekindle the kind of organizing that produced things like the SWOC in steel or the UAW in autos. Or even like SNCC in the 60's. Or like some aspects in the current union movement like SEIU Local 880 (note that these are just some of the possible examples I could use and being included doesn't mean that example was the epitome of organizing)?

In short when is the public debate going to occur over the organizing model? It is about resources, of course. But throwing, just for an example, $25 million at Wal-Mart is going to fail if we use the same old shop-by-shop-organize-for-an-NLRB-election/negotiate-for-a-contract model of joining new members. Not to mention that even when it wins it tends to treat workers like clients.

I want to see the paper that people like Stern and Sweeney throw around wrestle with the question of transforming organized labor from a "benefits" based regime into a "rights" based regime. Becoming, dare I say it, a labor "movement" again.

[Gary Cox]

What is a "middle class"? You guys are in trouble because you believe in that myth. There are workers and owners. Which class are you in?

You invested all of your pension funds in the stock market. How can you serve two masters? I can't really fight GM if my pension depends on large profits.

By the time you figure this out, the USA will be a third world nation.

[Josh H. Pille]

These are all great questions, and happily are not put out there as personal attacks.

Some random thoughts on your q's:

Question 2: Keep in mind that back in 1995/6, the much-ballyhooed announcement was that we would organize a million workers every year! The weekly AFL newsletter, Work In Progress, used to announce -- prominantly at the top of the page -- new workers organized every week and the running total for the year. They quietly stopped doing that back in September 2004.

Question 4: You show restraint in the number of other AFL-initiated, multi-union projects not listed there. How about oil workers in the Gulf, airports around the country, and building trades outside of Vegas. And how's that multi-union Wal Mart project coming, now that the AFL got that off the ground last year? (I know, I know: Wal Mart is its own beast and not a fair comparison...)

Question 8: A successful strategic campaign with the assistance of the AFL-CIO? This one actually has an answer, though not enough people know about it. Take a good look at the work the UAW has done in auto parts. They have a real industry strategy, and they're moving it successfully. They've worked in conjuntion with the AFL, and all parties deserve tons of credit. (Of course, the UAW is still doing plenty of non-strategic organizing in their other (non-auto-parts) division, and it could also be argued that the nature of the AFL/affiliate relationship in this instance was different from the norm, but... these are broader and more difficult questions.) Suffice it to say that there have been successes. Or a success.

Keep asking the good q's, Jonathan.

[Jordan Barab]

This is my question:

• with more than 50,000 workers dying each year from work-related accidents and illnesses, with millions suffering injuries,

• with workers in the U.S. now working more hours than workers in most of Western Europe and Japan more than one quarter of workers in the mining, manufacturing and wholesale trade industries working more than 40 hours per week, and

• with mounting evidence that these conditions cause elevated levels of psychological stress, increased exposure to physical hazards and more repetitive stress problems, as well as other serious health problems like heart attacks

• with the labor movement spiraling into oblivion,

why do we, on this Workers Memorial Day, have to worry about whether the AFL-CIO is going to abolish its health and safety department? Why is it difficult to understand that showing that unions care about the conditions people work under every day while they are at work are among the strongest issues on which to build a labor movement?

[Eric Lee]

This is a terrific piece; it's now on LabourStart under 'USA'.