Ouch, this is not good for John Sweeney. He's managed to royally piss off Harold Schaitberger, president of the Fire Fighters union. In the April 29th letter that was just passed to me tonight, Schaitberger resigns as head of the AFL-CIO Executive Council's Public Affairs Committee. He does so in a harsh, stinging letter to Sweeney, where he questions Sweeney's "sincerity and commitment..."
Sweeney's crime? Not notifying Harold in advance of the press conference last week where Sweeney discussed the newly-released AFL-CIO officers' recommendations for reform (By the way, we're still waiting here for answers to our 10 questions about the document). Clearly, Harold is also incensed at Denise Mitchell, head of public affairs--one gets the sense that he feels the staff has failed to involve him closely in the work of the department. And one thing staff never should do is piss off an elected union president--diss him in private but don't make it obvious.
Now, for my taste, this letter drags on a bit and gets a bit whiny by belaboring the point that Harold feels snubbed. But, the letter is important in this way:
1. It's a long way to the July convention. True, Schaitberger is counted as a solid Sweeney supporter, so far, and he ends the letter seemingly expressing that support again. But, what happens when the deals get cut in the run-up to the convention? If it all of a sudden becomes a close call and the ground shifts, this snub just gets factored into where Schaitberger may end up. One thing about Schaitberger he is dogged: recall that when John Kerry was tanking in the polls, the Fire Fighters were the only major union to endorse him and stick with him through thick and thin (unlike at least one national union president who switched candidates like used condoms, depending on where they stood in the polls), hence Schaitberger's Zelig-like appearances in almost every photo or video shot of a major Kerry rally.
2. More important, his letter uses language that reinforces the critique put out by the reform coalition. By raising the question of Sweeney's "sincerity and commitment," and by using other language that implicitly questions the motives of Sweeney's senior staff, the letter could be used by a challenger to Sweeney to say, "you see, even a supporter has doubts and misgivings about the ability of the current team to change the Federation."
And, then, I always find letters like this amusing--a scorched-earth, blistering rant, closing with "fraternally."
Here's the letter--
=====================================
Dear President Sweeney:
As I have stated in personal conversations with you, and in the paper I submitted on behalf of the IAFF regarding our position and ideas on the Federation's reform process and dialogue, I strongly believe that significant changes are necessary for the Labor Movement to make a comeback in this country.
I believe that our organizing efforts must receive more funding and focus. I believe that more resources and thought--including a major strategic move to a bi-partisan approach--need to be devoted to our political and legislative efforts. Equally important, I believe that the AFL-CIO staff and structure needs to be streamlined.
As part and parcel of these things, I also expressed my strong view that the Federation's public affairs and messaging efforts must be expanded and improved substantially if any reforms are truly going to re-energize our movement.
You have known of my closely held beliefs on these positions for some time. In fact, we have discussed on a number of occasions your desire to re-engage the Public Affairs Committee of the Executive Council. In that regard, last September, you asked me to chair that Committee based on--as you said to me face-to-face--your personal belief in the importance of expanding the Federation's public affairs efforts.
I told you, as well as your senior staff responsible for Public Affairs Committee, that I was not interested in just leading meetings of this committee. I said then, and reiterated in subsequent discussions with you, that I had no interest in wasting anyone's time and would only accept the position of committee chair if you were truly serious about actively engaging the committee in the actual public affairs efforts of the Federation.
Each time I raised my doubts about how serious you were about this committee, based on what I considered lapses in commitment from your staff in supporting the committee as we moved forward, you reassured me that you were dedicated to making it a priority.
Then, yesterday, April 28th, you held a major news conference to release 'recommendations' for change at the Federation without so much as mentioning anything to me--even as an aside during separate conversations--despite having every opportunity to tell me about the press event in the days leading up to it.
You and I had a one-on-one private meeting on Tuesday, April 26, in which you shared your general thoughts and reform ideas. Not once did you even come close to indicating that those ideas were fully developed enough to present a nearly 30-page paper detailing those reforms just 48 hours later.
Furthermore, I was with you and Denise Mitchell again on Wednesday, April 27, at the Political Committee meeting. Neither of you saw fit to so much as mention to me, as chair of the Public Affairs Committee, that the very next day you would be conducting a major press event on what you have now put forward as your reform 'recommendations.'
Now, I don't, nor do I expect, any administration or president to inform me, or the committee, of every press/public affairs event. However, if you don't see fit to bring me in, or at least simply inform me, as your chair, that you are going to conduct a major media event announcing critical proposals regarding the Federation, then I have to question your sincerity and commitment to the Public Affairs Committee structure.
Unfortunately, John, I can't view this incident as merely an 'oversight.' Not giving me, at a minimum, a heads-up about the white paper and press event, especially when we have had so much personal contact during the course of this week was, in my view, not only disappointing, it was also very telling.
For the reasons cited above, I hereby resign as chair of the Executive Council's Public Affairs Committee effective immediately.
Rest-assured, this is not a snap judgment. The meetings we've had on this issues about my concerns relating to the committee's work and my role have been expressed over an extended period of time. I am sorry to say that, in this specific case, actions speak louder than words.
With that said, I remain committed and hopeful at this time that your efforts on behalf of the Federation will produce significant, positive, effective and meaningful reform. I intend to remain a constructive and supportive participant in the process on behalf of my union and our Labor Movement.
Fraternally,
Harold A. Schaitberger
General President
cc: Morton Bahr, President Communications Workers of America
William Burrus, President, American Postal Workers Union
John Carr, President, National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Patrician Friend, President, Association of Flight Attendants-CWA
Gregory Junemann, President, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers
Gerald McEntee, Int'l President, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
Arturo Rodriguez, President, United Farm Workers of America
John W. Wilhelm, President/Hospitality Industry, UNITE-HERE
Edward Wytkind, President, Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO
"switched candidates like used condoms"? what does that even mean? do you often switch between used condoms? i see what you mean to say -- he (McEntee, I assume) threw out his previously endorsed candidate as he would throw out a condom after using it, in favor of a fresh and not-yet-used-in-screwing Kerry condom -- but it sounded strange the way you worded it.
hmm. maybe this wasn't the most important thing in your post to comment on.
Posted by: pointless and anonymous | May 05, 2005 at 02:43 PM