Carpenters--It's Official

Here's the official announcement on the Carpenters joining the Change To Win coalition...but you already knew this was happening.

CARPENTERS UNION JOINS CHANGE TO WIN COALITION
Six Million Union Members United in Growth Alliance

WASHINGTON, D.C.  ---  The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America announced today that it is joining the Change to Win Coalition, the labor reform movement created on June 15, 2005 by the Teamsters, UFCW, SEIU, UNITE HERE, and Laborers.

In uniting with the Change to Win Coalition, Carpenters President Doug McCarron said today: “The Carpenters Union is proud to join with the most dynamic unions in the country in the Change to Win Coalition.  Our union is about building power and strength for working men and women and that is what the Change to Win Coalition is all about.  In uniting our respective strengths, we can create a new hope for the millions of American workers for whom the American Dream is still a dream."

Laborers President Terence O'Sullivan said: “We are glad the 550,000 members of the Carpenters Union have joined the Change to Win Coalition, united by our common vision of a labor movement built on the principles of organizing and collective action.”

Teamsters President James P. Hoffa said: “We are proud to be joining forces with the Carpenters Union because the status quo can no longer stand. Workers demand more, and our unions will work hard to empower them with a real voice and real strength in the workplace.”

"The Carpenters have proved that they can build their union as their members build our country," says John Wilhelm of UNITE HERE.  "The Change to Win coalition is proving it can re-unite unions that are dissatisfied with the status quo."

The Coalition is a new alliance devoted to creating a large-scale, coordinated campaign to expand the American labor movement.  Its goal is to empower the tens of millions of American workers who struggle to make ends meet and whose voice has been silenced by the overwhelming power of global corporations and their representatives in Washington.

The 550,000 members of the Carpenters Union brings the number of workers represented by the Coalition to nearly six million.

END STATEMENT

Comments

[lawyer who can add]

As a lawyer, I’m trained to be curious as well as incredulous. So when I read in the New York Times last week that several of the “Change to Win” unions have actually been losing members over the past few years, I decided to do some research.

I went online to the Department of Labor website at http://erds.dol-esa.gov and checked LM-2 reports for the past four years and found that from 2000 to 2004, four of the five unions indeed lost members. The food workers lost 42,000, the hotel workers 7,402, UNITE 23,400, and the teamsters 74,000. These aren’t disastrous losses, but neither do they recommend any of the unions involved as organizing geniuses. Even the carpenters union, which condemned the AFL-CIO for lack of organizing before abandoning the federation four years ago, lost 10,752 members.

While I was checking the LM-2 reports, I also took a look at the financials of the same unions. In 2000, the food workers listed net assets (net worth) of $159,682,770. By 2004, it had been reduced to $ 98,044,262. The hotel workers net worth had gone up slightly, from $16,154,498 to $20,075,969. UNITE’s net worth had gone from $216,297,291 to $183,314. The carpenter’s net worth went from $203,665,696 to $192,743,316 in 2003 (the last year for which they’ve filed an LM-2).The teamsters union, which in 2000 had a net worth of $20,730,001, now has a net worth of minus $8,490, 401, making them technically bankrupt.

Again, there are all sorts of reasons unions spend down their assets, sometimes for much-needed organizing, sometimes for politics. But these are the same unions that accused the AFL-CIO of unwisely doing just that over the past 10 years. However, the LM-2 reports raise some other interesting questions.

Why do these five unions, with a combined net worth of nearly $500,000,000 need to ask the AFL-CIO for rebates in order to spend more on organizing. Specifically, why are the carpenters and UNITE (which now includes the hotel workers) sitting on nearly $200,000,000 each while their membership numbers shrink? Explanations, anyone?

A lawyer who can add.

[Janet]

Great find, a lawyer who can add...

Makes you wonder what direction this new Coalition is really headed toward.

[anon]

lawyer who can add: from jackson lewis?

[Richard Ford]

Anon - enough with the Bush tactics. Just because someone asks uncomfortable questions, that doesn't mean they are disloyal or working for the opposition.

I think "lawyer who can add" did a nice job. Didn't everybody already suspect that the IBT, UNITE, HERE were losing members and that UFCW was in financial trouble? "Lawyer" just adds some facts to support the conventional wisdom.

Much appreciated.

[zach]

it isn't clear how many new members have been organized and how much of the loss is due to retirement.
there is natural churn overtime and the net loss doesn't necessarily mean that organizng has not been succesful.

[D Flinchum]

Thanks to "Lawyer Who Can Add". The Carpenters left the AFL-CIO a few years back. When last I'd heard - I admit about 3 years ago - they were not cleaning up on organizing. Since up to 4 or 5 other internationals were talking about following their path out of the AFL-CIO and into more money for organizing, it seemed important to me to know exactly how well the Carpenters had done since their departure, since they are the only international who had actually left the AFL-CIO. There are a lot of reasons that it is very difficult to organize these days but leaving the federation apparently doesn't guarantee success.

[Mark]

How about a lawyer who can benchmark? That is, what about the unions that are in the Sweeney camp? In many ways, this is a debate between two sides, no? How does the other sides' numbers compare to the CtW coalition?

But, as the name implies, CtW is about "changing," so I don't know that an analysis of historical financials and organizing results is the best method to evaluate contrasing plans for the future. For instance, I think the food workers get that past practice isn't exactly working, and they need to reform in order to make a difference.

One final question: why did you choose to omit SEIU's results?

[Ben]

Certainly leaving the federation doesn't gaurantee success in organizing, and I don't think anyone would argue that it does. I'm actually very curioius as to how the carpenters have done as well, they are certainly an enigma. as to lawyer who can add's specific questions, I have some ideas. I believe the carpenters assets are so large because they own a lot of property, which they have started using to generate income. Unite's assets are so large because they own a bank, their membership shrank because the US textile industry has been decimated by trade agreements and the phasing out of various protections that were allowing the last few companies to hang on. I would bet that they're membership in industrial laundries, theirly, but current organizing focus has grown significantly, though not enough to completely offset the loss of their old base.

As for HERE, I would imagine that if you broke down the membership losses by year, you would see a dramatic drop post Sept 11 when the tourist industry went into a tailspin, causing a lot of layoffs in the hotel industry, and a gradual recovery as hotels hired people back and new hotels were organized.

I think everyone, including Joe Hansen, would agree that the UFCW has had a rough couple of years, a lot of employers have been in all out attack mode (i.e. Tyson and Safeway) and this has cost them members and resources. They recognize the need to change both internally as a movement.

[Steve Dondley]

My understanding, from talking to a local union President in my area, is that UFCW spent about $110 million on the Safeway strike. I think that would probably account for a dip in the net assests.

[rich]

HERE lost 100,000 members in the months following 9/11, many of those jobs have come back, many have not.

That being said, this year alone, Local 226 of UNITE HERE has organized 9,000 folks into the union.

[Tasini]

Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, I took statistics. I learned a valuable lessons: there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Meaning you can confuse the issue and/or obscure some important points with statistics and numbers.

No one doubts that unions are losing members. We're down to less than 8 percent in the private sector. Duh. I doubt any of the unions mentioned would deny that they've lost members as a NET loss. But actually, I'm surprised at how tiny those net losses are.

That tells you nothing about how successful the unions have been at organizing new workers but could tell you something about the overall economic trends and loss of jobs in certain sectors (i.e., UNITEHERE has never quite recovered from the collapse of the tourism sector after 9-11, particularly in NY, nor do the net losses draw the picture of the disintegration of the garment industry due to so-called free trade).

The real issue is: who's trying to do something about that? That's for everyone to decide on their own.

[John]

The more important question is what is their plan to win, and how do you measure success. SEIU has been successful in expanding their dues base but has been unable to build anything that remotely resembles a movement.

SEIU organizes employers not workers and couldn't grow at all if they were not selling out their membership at every turn. If I hear one more purple pusher compare them selves to the CIO I'm going to loose it.

If SEIU has to hire consultants to organize a demonstration, or has to waist dues money on polls to figure out the rank and file don't want their pensions stolen, then were is their ability to lead labor and where are they taking us?

[ben]

at this point, comments like this just make me laugh. Again, SEIU is not perfect, and I'm certain that some locals meet this description, but the broadstrokes used to discount SEIU are off base.

Yes, SEIU does organize BY employer, but it also organizes the workes. The "increased dues base" includes workers who have struck to win employer paid health insurance, pensions, and other improvements. They had the power to win because their employers are organized. I would measure success by saying that at a time when most other major unions are bargaing concessions (and not just in sectors that are going over seas) SEIU is winning improvements in most every contract negotiation.

Mr. Doe, what's the plan to win. Great question. You don't like SEIU's what's yours?

[John R]

The more important question is what is their plan to win, and how do you measure success. SEIU has been successful in expanding their dues base but has been unable to build anything that remotely resembles a movement.

SEIU organizes employers not workers and couldn't grow at all if they were not selling out their membership and patients at every turn. If I hear one more purple pusher compare them selves to the CIO I'm going to loose it.

SEIU was able to strike a deal with owners of nursing homes in California. In exchange for a neutrality agreement and card check from employers SEIU turned their back on their allies and patient advocates who'd supported SEIUs drive to organize nursing homes for years in hopes that it would improve patient care. Instead SEIU gave away patient's right to sue in exchange for an easy win. SEIU agreed to endorse tort reform that would restrict patients right to sue nursing homes.

Is this SEIUs plan to win?

[lawyer_who_can_add]

My comments on several questions:

First, I omitted SEIU’s results because it’s a given that they’ve been very, very successful and have a phenomenal growth rate. That’s not in question. The question is more properly framed by our blogster Mr. Tasini when he says: “Who’s trying to do something about that?” My comments clearly demonstrate four of the five C2W unions either are not trying or have failed to “do something about that,” and are therefore suspect as leaders or innovators.

In a response from “C2W” on other websites, a spokesman asked: “Where are the numbers for IAM, UAW, Steel and AFSCME?” and blames the failure of the four C2W unions to increase membership on “unique circumstances.” As if the loss of 3 million manufacturing jobs weren’t “unique circumstances” for the IAM, UAW and Steel and the budget-cutting of the Bush administration wasn’t a “unique circumstance” for AFSCME.

For the record, back to the numbers: AFSCME in the year 2000 represented 1.3 million members and had a net worth of $7,045,409. In 2004, despite crushing “unique circumstances,” AFSCME represented 1.35 million members and had a net worth of $8,132,452.

The Communications Workers of America, despite fighting off employers in the fastest-changing industries in the world, saw its net membership rise from 499,557 in 2000 to 557,136 at the end of 2003. Its net worth increased over the same period from $246,878,257 to $285,883,975.

Likewise, the American Federation of Teachers saw its membership go from 741,270 in 2000 to 816,300 in 2004. Its net worth also increased from $57,144,690 to $64,704,243.

Finally, the C2W spokesman pegs the Teamsters’ problems on a “costly government presence.” That’s lawyerspeak for the $2.7 million in expenses the IBT pays the U.S. government every year for the consent decree on racketeering and corruption the union signed many years ago. That’s roughly equal to the amount of dues rebate the IBT now wants back from the AFL-CIO. Wouldn’t it be better to finish the job of cleaning up the union and spend the money on “trying to do something about that?”

[ben]

i'm confused, what are the fastest changing industries in the world? is it casinos? Healthcare? public sector? If CWA organized 58,000 workers at telecom and utilities then they deserve a standing ovation, and would really do something to fight the employers in those industries. I don't think thats the case, though I may be wrong, I know CWA has been hot shopping healthcare, doing some good public sector organizing, and pulling shady business in casinos. I don't think that's striking fear into the hearts of the CEO's of verizon or sprint and I haven't heard much about big organizing drives at the telecoms.

I don't know who the ctw spokesman you refer to is, or if it was just a blogger who agrees with the program, but no one is blaming the UAW or USWA/PACE for the loss of manufacturing jobs. What CTW is proposing is a different way to respond to those circumstances that are "unique" to most unions in this country. UNITE responded to the loss of textiles by identifing a related industry that was largely un organized and ing strategically to organize it (laundries) HERE weathered the storm and continued to organize, then they merged to create UNITE HERE and amp up both the laundry organizing (see recent angelica victory) and hotel organizing (see current contract fight) both of which are long term campaigns that will result in thousands of new workers organizing. The teamsters and UFCW, and to some extent, the Laborers, have been examples of general unionism at the expense of industry focus, now they've said they want to change that, they should be judged on how they follow through on that.

[t.tvetan]

you look at the money side of union problems,but unions are made up of people who struggle everyday.The people of the U>S>A> are a hard working people that own this country.the unions were organized because, thats the only way that we could stand up to big business,and the government.Our government does not like unions because big business does not like unions.That the 2 party system and the people trying to get started in this country here that unions are no good,the unions are no good.Are young people that cant afford to go to college or dont have college potencal are not equally represented By or system which is money.So the carpenter on the street is basically a by him self.We tried in the 1970 to get the same rights as the electrical and plumber, which would have give or local equal writes as the other two trade. The government turned use down because that would have orginized the carpenters so we would be equal in the eyes of the construction tradesmen.This is were electricions and plumbers have it made,the under the umberalla af the state like the carpenters and the othertrades. thank you