Rumblings From Outside D.C.

    On and off, over the past few months, I've gotten various comments from leaders of Central Labor Council and State Feds about the whole hoo-hah going on, as many of them see it, back there in Washington D.C. The rumblings have picked up a bit...

   Below is a resolution passed a few weeks ago by the Harris County Central Labor Council (Houston, Texas...maybe I'm mentioning this one because it's my birthplace). Apparently, similar resolutions have passed in Denver, San Francisco, San Jose and other cities. Richard Shaw, the secretary-treasurer for the council, tells me that, "The purpose of this resolution is to demonstrate support from our Central Labor Council, the Harris County AFL-CIO Council, for keeping our Federation intact.  Other CLC's are also considering this same resolution along with State Federations and many have passed it already (I was informed of this by the National AFL-CIO).  There is a move among some unions to leave the AFL-CIO.  CLC's and State Federations are organizations of all unions."

    Resolutions don't make a whole lot of difference unless there's something else going on. Maybe it's not much but there is a rumbling among some folks out there about both of the factions involved in the debate over the future of labor. They aren't necessarily pro-Sweeney (though many are ardent supporters) because they do see and experience the decline of the labor movement pretty damn close to the streets at home. But, they also aren't sure what the Change To Win coalition offers them--and, in particular, they've been agitated by the coalition's questioning of the unusual convention voting power the CLCs and State Feds have: almost 600 out of the roughly 1,041 delegates.

    One CLC leader, angered by the debate, wrote two dispatches to me recently, which I'll combine here: "What a blunder by the Change to Win team. Rather than ask for Central Labor Council and State Fed votes, they attack our right to vote. CLC and State Fed  delegates  disgusted with ten years of  defeat and decline want to believe that closer to the bottom there are strategies and ideas might work. A decade of being ignored, managed, conned, and patronized  by the AFL-CIO while fighting the overwhelming tide has left CLCs and State Feds desperate for change. And what do we get? Elimination or trivialization.  This is the choice?

    Until a few years ago CLCs paid an annual $20 affiliation fee in exchange for one lousy vote at the convention, unfunded mandates, and relentless hortatory rhetoric. The only legitimate if completely feeble voice a CLC ever had in matters. I believe it was as part of the ill-fated Union Cities initiative that $20 fee was eliminated.

    I was not happy about it but, of course, I had no say. All the CLCs and State Feds combined don't have as many votes in AFL-CIO matters as a  medium sized local union but that $20 still gave us laughable legitimacy. Now, on procedural issues at this convention, it turns out CLC and State Fed votes could have some significance. It is a tough but fleeting moment for pie cards. Should they feign interest or wax indignant when they are forced to listen to folks who live, but more often than not, die on volunteerism? What a pain in the ass. How can the AFL-CIO combatants be expected to efficiently marshal the dues income streams necessary to pretend to battle the bosses when there is this flickering social movement they have yet to completely extinguish?    

    Independently, a caucus of minority unionists met recently and the report given to me about the meeting is striking. It seems you can easily interchange the terms, "minority," "community," and "CLC" as the discontented at the bottom talk about their frustrations with the top. The key description of the difference between the combatant for AFL-CIO leadership at this minority meeting was described this way "one side pisses on your head and tells you it's raining, the other side pisses on you head." Ironically I wrote the first part of this e-mail this morning and heard the story this afternoon.  It seems there  may be more than a few people feeling this way."

    I would just say, in passing, that it is a sad comment on the labor movement that people feel a need to speak anonymously.

    Now, the significance of this rumblings may play out in some resolutions because there is a dollars and cents issue: if any large affiliates, such as SEIU, pull out of the Federation, the central labor bodies could take a big hit--their survival depends on the affiliates paying dues. John Sweeney's position has been that unaffiliated labor organizations cannot participate in AFL-CIO Central Labor Bodies. The Change To Win coalition has proposed amending the AFL-CIO Constitution to allow any "appropriate" unions to continue to belong to the AFL-CIO central labor bodies. So, this might be a place where the central labor bodies support the Coalition, while still sticking behind Sweeney's re-election.

    And, if I could venture an opinion here: it makes sense. Why on earth, with the labor movement so small, would anyone want to stand in the way of trying to prevent coordination between unions--no matter what larger structure they belong to? Indeed, SEIU--the most likely affiliate to leave--has contemplated the issue, declaring, after its executive board authorized its officers in June to make a decision on affiliation, that it would continue to participate in central labor bodies (obviously, if allowed) even if it disaffiliated.

=====================================

[Harris County Resolution]

UNITY and Solidarity of the Labor Movement

This resolution is being put forward through State Federations as well as Area and Central Labor Councils to ensure that the voices of local labor movements are heard clearly and unequivocally in the important debate about the future of our movement.       

We have engaged in months of open dialogue, debate, and discussion resulting in many agreements, some disagreements, and much progress in all of our thinking about our responsibilities as members and leaders of the American labor movement.  Varied approaches have been – and continue to be – offered about the best way to restore our movement’s power and ability to fight and win for working families.       

Fundamentally we are faced with the reality that our movement and America’s working families are under attack as never before from a ruthlessly-focused and well financed corporate and right wing political agenda.  We are confronted with the crisis of disappearing good jobs, stagnating or declining wages, inaccessible and unaffordable health care, the systematic dismantling of retirement security and the effective elimination of the fundamental freedom of workers to form unions.       

We firmly believe that as a labor movement, and as its local leaders, we have a duty and a responsibility to respond to the crisis we face.  Our response must be to grow our movement and to use our power to change the political environment in favor of a working families agenda.  No one can have any quarrel with these two related and mutually dependent goals.  Time and our own experience have proven them both essential.  We commit to exert our leadership and best efforts to accomplish this.       

Whatever the outcome of the debates and decisions made by our organizations about how best to achieve these goals, we believe there is one bedrock and fundamental principle our movement must embrace.  We must remain unified and in solidarity in one American labor movement - the AFL-CIO.

We hereby call upon all the affiliates of the AFL-CIO to reject any attempt to break apart our federation and weaken our movement.  Splitting our movement jeopardizes workers at the very time we see the greatest need ever for a strong, united labor movement with an aggressive agenda on behalf of working families.  Rather, we urge all labor organizations to reaffirm our commitment to a unified and stronger labor federation by fully affiliating every union with the AFL-CIO at the national, state and local level.  It is only by reaffirming and acting on the principles of unity and solidarity that we can fulfill our responsibilities as leaders of our movement.       

Therefore, the Harris County AFL-CIO Council adopts this resolution and will forward a copy to the National AFL-CIO and to National and International Union Presidents of all the unions in the AFL-CIO.

Comments

[Jerry]

Sounds like labor is facing the same problem as the Democrats. Too much power for the nationals and internationals, not enough voice for the grassroots and locals. Stern asks some good questions, but his top-down approach is seriously counter productive.

[Guillermo Perez]

I definitely see the analogy to the Democrats Both entities have lost touch with their activist base. I also love the idea that local union leadership, particularly those who depend on grassroots union activism to succeed, might show some guts and challenge both sides to get over themselves and listen to the people who carry on the fight on the ground.

Is it possible that some local grassroots labor leaders active in their CLCs are actually showing leadership by challenging the "top-down" nature of this whole debate? That would be cool. Unfortunately not every CLC is doing good work and many CLC delegates at conventions follow marching orders rather than exercise much in the way of independent judgement. I frankly like the idea of having CLCs operate more independently at the grassroots level. I think that they should by all means cultivate relationships with independent unions -- particularly those independents who want help in maintaining industry standards in their contracts.

[Ben]

I can't speak for all locals, but I can say that without a doubt, the leaders of my SEIU local, who are very involved in many CLC's, have been and continue to push these issues. I think its a misconception that Stern is the main driving force behind this, many local leaders have been organzing towards this for a long time. Just a point to consider when making broad statements about how the this is playing out between locala nd international leadership...

[Fran]

I want to thank seiu, the afl, and john t. for creating their forums for union members to express themselves. I don't always agree with all the posts, but I think the whole experience with thess blogs have been good for the union movement. Those of us who are members of seiu 5000 / nage are copying this model and have created our own blog to communicate with each other: http://www.nagemembers.blogspot.com/
We'd appreciate some feed back.

[BadgerWI]

Seems to me that SEIU et al want to have it both ways...

They want to leave the national AFL CIO and not pay dues, yet they want to continue to participate in local and state federations.

In my mind, you're either in an organization or you're out.

[joe h]

It's not about 'coordination' so much as it is 'control'. We've got no local mayoral endorsement because SEIU is in bed with the corrupt mayor who's attacking AFSCME.

[Anon]

"They want to leave the national AFL CIO and not pay dues, yet they want to continue to participate in local and state federations."
There has never been, nor will there ever be, according to the National AFL-CIO a requirement for International's to affiliate locally. This will remain voluntary and they will encourage (READ- open shop). And, except for a few extreme cases, mostly in the South with good reason, not a dime of the National's money ever filters down to local CLC organizing. CLC's have complained bitterly about this issue. Consider the irony now that the tables have been turned; CTW unions wish to affiliate locally and not nationally. So the CLC passage above hits the nail on the head. Can't we just go back to the good old days when the National just ignored what the CLC's were doing? Some of the most creative movement building and progessive political coalitions are germinating out of the local. An enforcement of non AFL-CIO affiliation to CLC's will destroy some of the best things the AFL-CIO has to offer.

[jacr]

Seems to me that this problem--locals of independent (or CTW) unions wanting to be part of important local coordination efforts--might be solved by looking outside of the CLC structure and to something like Jobs with Justice. At its best JwJ serves (in cities where it exists) as a sort of shadow CLC, but with the addition of important religious and community groups, with whom local coordination among unions is undoubtedly benefited. In Boston, for instance, where the CLC and the State Fed are usually pretty useless, it's JwJ that encouraged collaboration among progressive unions.