CLCs Still Organizing

    Last night, a meeting was held between representatives of the Change To Win Coalition and a small group of Central Labor Council and State Fed reps. "They are really discouraged," says my wag early this morning (I'm not even dressed...I can't speak for my source since we did this my phone...yes, folks, you can call me early).

    If you remember, the Change To Win Coalition had put forth an amendment which is at the heart of the debate over whether to allow unaffiliated labor bodies to take part in Federation local and state organizations (you can see the relevant language at the bottom of page 5 and top of page 6  in the Coalition's proposals). That amendment was defeated in the Constitution Committee.

    But, apparently, the amendment has been resurrected and will be brought to the floor today. As the CLC leaders who met last night see it, this is a way to throw some red meat on to the floor of the convention--delegates will rise to speak about the amendment and, in the process, point out that the Coalition's unions are not in the hall to defend its own amendment, and, then, proceed to defeat the amendment. Of course, the Laborers and Farmworkers are at the convention so we'll see how that plays out.

    My source also confirms the accuracy of what I reported on yesterday. The CLC leaders have already been threatened by representatives from AFSCME, the machinists and communications workers--they have been told that if they take any money from SEIU or the Teamsters, the other unions will not participate in CLCs. That strikes the discouraged CLC leaders as odd since yesterday the praise for CLCs was ringing through the hall from a variety of speakers who made passionate speeches about affiliates needing to fully participate in CLCs and build the movement from the ground up. Hypocrisy anyone?

    In fact, to be concrete, I'm told that the Washington State Fed president, Rick Bender, has called the Teamsters' representative in his state and told him he will not accept anymore per capita checks from the Teamsters--but they are welcome to come as guests (personally, if it's the usual donuts and other junk food served at those kinds of meetings, I'd tell the Teamsters' folks to pass).

    UPDATE: I received an e-mail from David Groves of the Washington State Labor Council. He clarified his council's position: "SEIU and Teamsters delegates who registered to attend our annual convention next week in Spokane have been invited to attend the convention as guests.  That’s way different from somehow inviting the Teamsters to remain in the WSLC as “guests” – which is what you say here -- which makes it sound like they can come to all our meetings and passively participate in our organization."

    In one sense, this is discouraging: I continue to say...this position makes no sense, and certainly John Sweeney has been steadfast in his position on the issue. Why not let any legitimate union pitch in to a Central Labor Council or State Fed? We often hear of the lack of resources for those central labor bodies, on the one hand, and yet, on the other hand, there's a lot of rhetoric about building the labor movement from the ground up. Here are non-affiliated unions will to HELP the AFL-CIO accomplish its mission...Am I missing something here?

    But, on the other hand, the national leaders' position may have awakened a sleeping tiger. As I found out yesterday from roaming the halls, a lot of the CLC leaders see the whole internal political fight has having nothing to do with them. I'll be the first one to say that not all CLCs and State Feds are equal--a good number are fairly weak and ineffective. But, there are some really terrific, dynamic people running other local and state labor bodies.

    By taking a hard line, the national leaders may be igniting a longer term declaration of independence from the national AFL-CIO--not officially cutting ties but actually building their own networks and plans distinct from what happens inside the Washington circle. I think the national presidents have picked up on this rumbling and, as a result, are trying to calm the waters by, for example, putting out a proposal to raise the per capita tax four cents to raise money that would be dedicated for CLCs and State Feds, as well as proposing a resolution (that passed yesterday) calling for a summit to be held very soon to discuss how the disaffiliation of SEIU and the Teamsters (and other disaffiliations to come) have changed the landscape for the AFL-CIO.

    In any case, the Change To Win coalition is planning a meeting to talk about the relationship between the coalition and the CLCs and State Feds. "We want to see what they want from us and we're generally going to try to be constructive and we will commit resources to them," says my source.

    Damn, listen up CLCs and State Feds: grab this love right now. Everyone is sucking up to you but, remember, that won't last. And, check this out, John Sweeney says you have to practice monogamy but the coalition has no problem with you going to the dance with the AFL-CIO and the coalition together. Hmmmm...

Comments

[jacob]

Last night on All Things Considered, Richard Trumka was going on about the importance of strengthening CLCs and State Feds, since that's where the actual work of the Federation goes on. He did not say (and Robert Siegal did not press him) how that desire to strengthen CLCs meshed with ordering them to reject large quantities of money and participation from big unions.

I am particularly troubled that internationals are ordering their locals not to participate in CLCs which allow participation by unaffiliated unions. It's vindictive, it's undemocratic, and it's top down. (Funny how "top down" is usually applied to the other side.) It also makes me worry about other local coalitions outside of formal AFL structures. If AFSCME, IAM, and CWA have all banned their locals from participating in CLCs with unaffiliated unions, will they go further? What will this do to Jobs with Justice? Or even local labor history societies?

[Pete Arsenault]

This blog has been outstanding for those of us trying to keep up with clashes within the labor movement. I'm a delegate to the local CLC and I believe AFL-CIO Executive Council decision to exclude the SEIU, Teamsters and soon to be UNITEHERE and UFCW from CLCs will be devastating. I don't know the amount of per capita we'll lose but it'll be HUGE since UFCW, SEIU and Teamsters are the largest affiliates.
Our CLC has made great strides in last seven years or so but we have a LONG way to go. Without those four unions (Laborers aren't active in our CLC and UFW has no members in our area), we're going to lose ABOUT HALF the regular delegates who do the work of the council!
This is particularly upsetting since we're trying to establish grassroots political committees in the cities and towns in our area to promote candidates who support a working families agenda, push for pro-worker legislation, increase voter registration, etc.
Not only do I think the CLCs should include these four unions as full dues-paying members of the council, I'd like to see the local NEA chapters, UE and other independant unions included as well.

[Regina]

Point of clarification: it was not the AFL-CIO leadership deciding who can and cannot participate in the S&L bodies that was the catalyst to this debate. The AFL-CIO Constitution requires that all state and local bodies consist exclusively of local bodies of AFL-CIO affiliated unions. (See the below AFL-CIO Constitutional provision, from the federation website.) An immediate consequence of the disaffiliation of SEIU and the Teamsters is the reduction of S&L body revenues. That reduction is now the status quo. It appears an affirmative act is required to change the Constitution in this regard.

Article XIV: State, Area and Local Central Bodies

Section 1
Central bodies subordinate to the Federation may be chartered upon a city, state or other regional basis as may be deemed advisable by the Executive Council and shall be composed exclusively of locals of national and international unions and organizing committees, affiliated with the Federation, directly affiliated local unions, local central bodies within the geographical limits of state and regional bodies, and such other subordinate bodies, constituent entities and allied retiree organizations as the Executive Council may determine are eligible for affiliation or other participation.

http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/thisistheaflcio/constitution/art14.cfm

[jacob]

Regina-

Yes, but my ojbection wasn't to the AFL enforcing its rules (which, while I disagree with them, I can at least understand). My objection is to AFSCME, CWA, and IAM internationals ordering their locals to withdraw from CLCs that worked with disaffiliated unions.

[Josh H. Pille]

Unlike Jacob, I do have an objection to the AFL enforcing its rules. Rules, when uniformly enforced, are fine. But the AFL has not enforced these same rules in the past: as has been pointed out many times, the Carpenters have remained active in local bodies even though they are not affiliated with the AFL. When Sweeney, a year or so ago, tried to force the BCTD to expel the Carpenters (because of these rules), he had to back down in the face of a surprising resistence.

To now try to buck past practice (not to mention common sense and strategic necessity) by pointing to the rules is disingenuous, to say the least.

[smg]

To add my 2 cents, the AFL has also never enforced the rule that calls for full afilliation in local and state clc's. Ironically, two of the loudest unions demanding that SEIU and the Teamsters be denied participation in state and local clc's (AFSCME and AFT) have been some of the biggest freeriders at the those same levels. Given the solidarity now more than ever yadda yadda from brother Mc Entee, it strikes me as a little more than a little hypocritical. Solidarity when?

[Michael Funke]

Yes, they appear to have adopted Lane Kirkland's version of labor's anthem: "Solidarity? Whenever." As previously stated, our CLC in Central Oregon (which has been on the rebound the past 3 years) will be devastated if we are forced to function without SEIU and UFCW participation. They are our two largest affiliates. In fact, without them, we won't actually have meetings unless we change our bylaws to say that a quorum is 3 delegates from 2 unions. I am serious! We will have no choice but to figure out an alternative that is inclusive rather than exclusive. There are no unions, on either side of this squabble, that are doing any real organizing in the private sector here in Deschutes County (fastest growing in Oregon, 40th fastest
growing in the nation)even though we have a huge and growing opportunity in hospitality (HERE, do you Hear?)and I have no reason to believe that this will change. We try hard out here away from the big cities, with no resources, and get stomped by the big boys in D.C. for our efforts. Its disgraceful.

[Tasini]

This is something I have felt strongly about--this isn't about a legalistic reading of the rules. Everyone knows that one can massage the rules when people desire to. The current effort is about political retribution--not what is good for the entire labor movement. I hope that, as everyone gets some distance from the hot rhetoric, anger and burning passions, cooler heads will prevail.

[D Flinchum]

"This is particularly upsetting since we're trying to establish grassroots political committees in the cities and towns in our area to promote candidates who support a working families agenda, push for pro-worker legislation, increase voter registration, etc." Pete Arsenault

"One immediate political consequence is that the AFL-CIO will no longer be able to coordinate get-out-the-vote drives that include Teamsters and SEIU members and their families. Under the law, the AFL-CIO can only mobilize voters who are in member unions." Thomas Edsall in the Washington Post on July 26, 2005.

Jeeez.... What part of ILLEGAL don't you understand? This isn't the AFL-CIO constitution or some vindictive affiliates. It's US LAW. I have yet to see anybody on this blog acknowledge that SEIU & the IBT apparently disaffiliated with - one hopes - legal consultation that would have advised them - one hopes - that future political co-operation with the AFL-CIO was heavily limited by law. CLC's and state feds are part of the AFL-CIO. Whatever they can LEGALLY co-operate on I personally think they should be able to. But this doesn't change the law!

[Small]

Should independent unions that decertify units of affiliated unions be admitted to CLC's?

Should independent unions that decertify from SEIU still be allowed to sit on SEIU local executive boards, just not pay percap to the international?

Isn't it dumb to keep workers separate over the issue of who they pay percap to?

[Anon]

Flitchem - this rule only applies on Federal elections. CLC's are about local elections.

[benton]

SMG -

I think you are wrong about the AFT. The AFT's own constitution requires its locals to fully participate in CLCs. I suspect that the teacher unions you might be thinking of are the NEA. NEA is an independent union and as such is barred from taking part in CLCs.

Small --
Any independent union that decerted from SEIU could take part in a CLC if it affiliated with AFL. This could be done by affiliating with an AFL union or through direct affiliation.

Tasini -
If, in fact, SEIU is raiding AFSCME, I don't see how there can be another response. If IBT isn't raiding anyone, I can understand working with them. They can't sit on the CLC, they can't pay dues, there are thing they can't have. But you can still have a relationship. SEIU has rattled the raiding saber in the run up to their disaffiliation. That meant they were going to be held at arms length no matter what. If the sword is drawn, then everyone's back is to the wall.

[D Flinchum]

CLC's are involved in all levels of elections - federal, state, and local - many of which are going on at the same time. In 2006, all of the US Congress and 1/3 of the US Senate are up; some state governors and state legislatures are also up; many local elections are going on. I'm amazed at how little thought apparently went into this issue before big decisions were made.