Insurgents Vs. AFL Officers--A Comparison

    It was on my pile to do but...the insurgents got there first. They put together a comparison of their proposal (entitled "Restoring the American Dream") versus the proposal released by the AFL-CIO officers (entitled "Winning For Working Families"). You can judge for yourself whether the comparison is accurate. I'll try to get my own comparison done as soon as possible (you know, there's laundry, there's a Yankees-Red Sox series...and it started out quite well and yours truly was in his usual seat).

    I'm also asking John Sweeney's folks if they have their own view of either the two proposals or  whether the comparison prepared by the insurgents is fair and accurate. If I get a response, I'll post it immediately.

Comments

[Krista]

All of the discussions about change don't seem to be having much of an impact on removing those that have the same old "tired" method of steering the union houses. Hooray to the insurgents that are speaking up! Orwell said; "At a time of universal deceit, telling truth is a revolutionary act!" Not something the current AFL-CIO Administration seems to embrace.

[joe h]

The biggest differences are the size of the Executive Council and the size of the rebate.

The "great rebate debate" is about whether 26 cents of our monthly dues goes to the AFL or stays with the national unions. Busting the fragile house of labor up over two dimes and a nickel when neither side (why are there only 'two sides'?) is absurd; and you don't need to be a great fan of the AFL to say that.

[Doug]

Krista, what is the truth that you are speaking about? Everyone knows the labor movement is in a crisis but reducing the afiliates' dues by 50% is not going to help. We should ask ourselves what is the real motive of Andy Stern, Hoffa and the other insurgents? That is the truth I would like to know.

[Mike]

I don't think Stern, Hoffa, etc.'s motives are that mysterious. They want to run their own labor federation. They think they have better ideas about how to run it, and looking at the history of the AFL, it's not hard to think that maybe they have a point.

[Krista]

My opinion is it takes courage to speak up about changes that could be implemented - otherwise why not sit back and watch a further slide in numbers. The debate is healthy and it's not worthy of us to dismiss the fact that this administration has been around for ten years, has not had a positive impact on the election outcome(s)despite spending millions, nor do they seem inclined to adequately explain their point of view. Time for someone else to get the opportunity - or would you prefer to maintain the status as it is. Is it conceivable that someone else within the labor movement just may be able to reverse the trend?!

[union maid]

Krista, no one is dismissing the fact that the Sweeney administration has been around for 10 years. What you and many others do seem to dismiss is the fact that every one of the dissident union leaders has played a major role in how the labor movement got to the point it is today. For years, all of them have been on the AFL-CIO Executive Council and the smaller Executive Committee. All belong to numerous committees of the Executive Council. Stern was co-chair of the Organizing Committee, but now that organizing is so important to him, he's not on that committee at all. Several of them are on the Finance Committee.

Until they explain why they have been so ineffective in directing the current administration, one would have to question whether their motives are about real change or just pocket change, as in the two dimes and a nickel that Joe H. mentions.

The Sweeney group has its faults -- its insistence on building a 100 percent concensus before acting slows the entire process of progress. And the structure of the federation itself creates underachievers since participation in most programs is voluntary, an aspect that sort of makes the fed president more cheerleader than leader.

The labor movement could be profoundly changed within 60 days, yet neither side has proposed specifics on exactly what the new structure will look like, only general outlines. Their memberships deserve to see exactly how the current AFL-CIO strcture will be changed.

[Tasini]

Interesting discussion. I think the truth is that no one has answers to some of the most critical questions facing labor. I discussed a few of them a couple of weeks ago (May 18th) back here:

http://workinglife.typepad.com/daily_blog/2005/05/still_time_for_.html

[Krista]

Could be you're right - some "coulda-woulda-shoulda" done more to step in. However, Sweeney's group ran against Donahue and thought they could make a difference - they haven't. Maybe two terms should be it for anyone to serve in this capacity. And, from what I hear from some on 16th Street, a consensus is not what they're about - they have a rep for getting heavy handed and aren't too likely to give up power easily. I'd bet you'd agree, if their methods aren't working as some say, get a "consensus" by hashing this out before the July meeting and do what's best for the labor movement.

[lori]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. The alleged largest union in the federation (tho not the largest union, which I believe is NEA) has about 300,000 more members than its closest runners up. SEIU may be the largest federation union, but it ain't by much, considering the number of unorganized workers in the U.S. Point being, nobody's doing much successfully. Most American workers do no know what a union is or what it does, beyond, perhaps, the way we've been painted by the anti-union crowd. I haven't seen anything concrete from the new bosses or the old on heightening the awareness through message and marketing or education. The lack of national message about corporate power and the assault on workplace rights, the lack of national message about the Bush admin stripping hundreds of thousands of workers of union rights, the lack of message period. What's changing after July?? just the faces at the top.