What Road For the CLCs?

    It's the classic question: local versus national; grassroots versus leadership...I've always been a man in the middle on the questions...you need both...neither is the answer on its own. And so the question of what will happen with the Central Labor Councils and State Federations has generated a lot of buzz and heat across the nation since the AFL-CIO convention, as well as a slew of interesting comments in this community here.

    Jeff Crosby, the president of the North Shore Labor Council (that being the north shore of Massachusetts...I dunno, Jeff, you sound like a New Yorker there thinking that everyone should know where that North Shore is...) posted the letter below in the comments section but I thought it merited an up-front viewing. Jeff's quite thoughtful and very active in networking with the AFL-CIO CLC and State Fed folks. And I feel confident saying that, of the people on the signers list so far who I know or know of, they represent the really good, hard working local leaders.

    Seems to me that the goal of this letter is to try to figure out some way to keep the dialogue going between the AFL-CIO and the Change To Win unions over how to keep the local organizing and political work running as smoothly as possible given that there are now two main structural entities representing unions (as opposed to independent unions). I'll update people, as I learn, how many more CLC and State Fed leaders sign on to the letter.

    Maybe you want to comment on the content of the letter...in particular, I'd welcome comments from CLC or State Fed leaders--either those who have signed the letter or those who haven't about what's the best way to bolster local activity.

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

An Open Letter from State Federation and CLC Leaders To the Unions of the AFL-CIO and the Change to Win Unions About Continued Solidarity at the State and Local Level

As leaders of the central labor councils and state federations of the AFL-CIO, we need the good-faith efforts of all unions to re-establish the unity of our labor movement at the state and local level.

At this time in our history when working people are facing relentless attacks on their standard of living, when employers are intensifying their opposition to the efforts of workers to form unions and when our unions are confronting attempts to destroy their right to engage the political process on behalf of working families, we need now, more than ever, to maintain our solidarity on the front lines of our movement if we hope to preserve a free and fighting labor movement for working Americans.

We recognize the willingness of the Change to Win unions to continue to support our state federations and central labor councils. We are encouraged that so many local unions of the Change to Win unions in our states have expressed their willingness to participate in our organizations as well. We are convinced that the good faith commitments of these unions could provide the basis for maintaining the unity of purpose and equity of effort that can sustain and strengthen our labor movement in these challenging times.

We applaud the proposal of AFL-CIO President John Sweeney to the Executive Council to provide for the continued participation of local unions of the Change to Win unions in our central labor councils and state federations through Solidarity Charters. Although we have heard objections to some of the details of that proposal which may deserve further consideration, we view this offer as a good faith effort to allow for the continued participation of the Change to Win unions with full voice and vote in our local central bodies.

The very concept of allowing continued participation in our local central bodies by unions which have disaffiliated from the national AFL-CIO is as unprecedented as it is important. The details of providing for such participation in ways that are consistent with the constitution and organizational principles of the AFL-CIO as well as state and federal election laws are, understandably, quite complex. But the proposal from the AFL-CIO Executive Council offers a creative and positive attempt to resolve these complexities and to help re-unite our movement at the local level through the all important 2006 election cycle.

We continue to hear from all of our unions the desire to keep us stronger together at the local level. Where there is that will, there has to be a way for us to do so – just as there needs to be a way to re-unify the labor movement at the national level.

The Reverend Jesse Jackson urged us in Chicago to “keep your eyes on the prize.” That prize, we believe, remains within our grasp at our state federations and central labor councils. But that prize could slip from our grasp if we fail to resolve this issue.

We urge all unions to make serious, good-faith efforts to find a way to keep our movement together at the local level. We believe the concept of Solidarity Charters provides the basis for achieving this goal.

Margaret Blackshere, President, Illinois AFL-CIO; Jeff Crosby, President, North Shore Labor Council; John Ryan, President, Cleveland AFL-CIO Federation of Labor; Tim Nesbitt, President, Oregon AFL-CIO ; Al Ybarra, Executive Secretary, Orange County Central Labor Council; Art Pulaski, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, California AFL-CIO; Bill George, President, Pennsylvania AFL-CIO; Bridgette Williams, President, Kansas City Labor Council (Greater); Christine Trujillo, President, New Mexico AFL-CIO; Cindy Hall, President, Florida AFL-CIO; Dan Radford, President, Cincinnati AFL-CIO Labor Council; Danny LeBlanc, President, Virginia AFL-CIO; David Newby, President, Wisconsin State AFL-CIO; Dennis Gannon, President, Chicago Federation of Labor; Ed Mayne, President, Utah State AFL-CIO; Ernie Grecco, President, Metropolitan Baltimore Council of AFL-CIO Unions; Geoff Upperton, President, Rock County Central Labor Council; Harold Dias Jr., President, Hawaii State AFL-CIO; Harold Schladweiler, President, Washington County Central Labor Council; Jack McKay, President, Bangor Labor Council (Greater); James Andrews, President, North Carolina AFL-CIO; Jerry Butckiewicz, Executive-Secretary, San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council; Jim Cavanaugh, President, South Central Federation of Labor; Jim Curry, President Secretary-Treasurer, Oklahoma State AFL-CIO; Jim DeHoff, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Kansas AFL-CIO; Jim McGarvey, President, Montana State AFL-CIO; Ken Mass, President, Nebraska State AFL-CIO; Mark Gaffney, President, Michigan State AFL-CIO; Patty Rose, Secretary-Treasurer, Pierce County Central Labor Council; Paul Johnston, Secretary-Treasurer, Monterey Bay County Labor Council; Ray Waldron, President, Minnesota AFL-CIO; Richard Shaw, Secretary-Treasurer, Harris County Central Labor Council; Sam Lathem, President, Delaware State AFL-CIO; Shar Knutson, President, St Paul AFL-CIO Trades and Labor Assembly; Steve Adams, President, Colorado AFL-CIO; Steve Williamson, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, King County Labor Council; Tony Vanderbloemen, President, Green Bay Labor Council (Greater).

Comments

[Anon]

I was heartened to hear the Solidary Charter proposal, but my enthusiasm was quickly tempered by the response from CTW. Our CLC has lost 30% of our operating budget and in several weeks one of two staffers will be laid off. Our political program is in shambles - remember that CTW unions are no longer included in the D-Base for calling and door-to-door canvassing. Everything that was moving forward now seems to be in a holding pattern. The Solidarity Charters seemed like an easy fix to all the nonsense at the national level.
When there are no "important" people making decisions, it seems like the good of the labor movement and workers are the top priority. Local activists (friends, neighbors, comrades)have been very open to coordination. None of this "split" makes sense or has truly been realized locally because in an all volunteer scenerio nobody gets turned away. But genuine solidarity aside it takes resources to help get the work done if we are going to make these organizations something more than a place to hang out as friends, talk about our jobs, and share a cup of coffee.

[Peter]

It seems like as long as the CLCs and State Feds are as wedded to the Solidarity Charters (with their solidarity surcharge) as the national AFL leadership, this isn't going to amount to much. If the dissaffiliated unions left because they want more money to persue their projects any kind of proposal that make them hand over more money to participate in organizations they've been a part of for years seems like a nonstarter. Forgive my casual reading but it looks like the CLCs from LA and the South Bay aren't signatories (yet?). It's my guess that this issue will more likely be resolved through personal relationships (like nearly everything else in the labor movement) than from any formal process proposed by Sweeny and Co.

[Anon]

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that Tasini has completely ignored multiple requests to diclose his financial, political, etc. ties to the CTW unions? What's the deal?

[Anon too]

Funny how an anonymous poster is requesting disclosure from JT, who at least operates under his own name!

[George]

Jeez, will you get off the money please. Go find the guy on the "grassy knoll".

[George]

Peter;
Money was not the sole issue. Had the National engaged in some quiet, off the record, discussions before hand, instead of what unilateral implementation, they may have been something acceptable to all parties. But this is still a very good starting point for initiating a dialogue.
I am with a CTW union. I view this situation as hopefully temporary. But, I unequivocally support the leadership of my union in their decision (call me the names now).
Having said all that, I fully agree with you that it is personal relationships that will help resolve this. I hope that my brothers and sisters, on both sides of this divide will remember that the people who they may be upset with now, may have been their allies in New York 10 years ago. And that their allies of today were someone they were in conflict with 6 months ago. And, at some point the pendelum will swing back again. The old saw of "In politics, neither friends nor enemies are forever." is very true.

[george]

Excuse the corrections. "instead of what was a unilateral implementation". And that their allies of today may have been someone they were in conflict with 6 months ago.

Sorry.

[Concerned]

I'm trying to educate myself about what's going on with Change to Win and all that and it's interesting to compare what you read on www.teamster.org with what's on www.tdu.org, the website of Teamsters For A Democratic Union.

There's especially a lot of provocative articles on that TDU website under Convoy which is the name of their newspaper. There's one called Will the Teamsters Union Change to Win? that goes through the Change to Win principles and asks if the Teamsters are following them.

There was another item I found pretty discouraging, under Labor Shorts, that said that the Teamsters say they are going to help organize WalMart but the person they put in charge of it is the daughter of one of the Teamster officials who already has three sons on the payroll. She may be a highly qualified individual or she may not but the problem with that kind of nepotism is that it destroys accountability which is supposed to be one of the Change to Win principles. If she is not doing the job it's not as though she would be fired.

[benton]

George -

The Solidarity charter hasn't been approved by the AFL-CIO executive council. So its not like the thing isn't a work in progress. There is no "implementation." And before it was finalized, C2W weighed in. It was a vituperative kind of weighing in that did them little credit, but they were heard.

Change to Win lost their chance to be an equal partner in AFL-CIO policy formation when they disaffiliated. But the reality is even more complicated.

At this point, as an AFL-CIO member, I want to have the policy proposal cleared through the AFL's decision making process, including my own dues paying union, before letting non dues payers have their say. And I think AFL-CIO is very conscious that they represent we who stayed, and not those who went.

So there is some difficulty having "quiet negotiations" without acutally lining up and getting the consent of the AFL-CIO's constituents. To really do that, and to build consensus within the AFL-CIO about the rules of the road, you can't be quiet. I actually am very impressed with the level of the debate within AFL about where to go with this. There would have been a tremendous backlash at any attempt to do this quietly behind the scenes and then presented to the affiliates as any sort of fait accompli. It is silly to think that it could be any other way.

[Anon]

I count 11 signers on the letter from CTW unions.

[albert parsons]

Forgive me if somebody has explained this already, but what happens to people from CTW unions who are officers of their local or state Fed bodies?

[benton]

albert parsons-

I think that is a sticking point within the AFL-CIO. The proposal I saw allowed them to stay if their local had a solidarity charter. But there is some debate about the approrpiate role of people who aren't paying full AFL-CIO dues as far as the ability to serve on boards and hold offices.

A number of AFL CLC and state fed leaders who came from C2W have done a Sweeney and joined OPEIU or some other union in AFL-CIO in order to continue their membership.

[Jacquie]

The Solidarity Charters are a good start and I support the letter and position in today's posting. In answer to Albert's question about what happens to people from C2W unions who are officers of State and Central bodies? I am the President of a State Federation - I am also the Executive officer of s Statewide local and IU organizer of a C2W union that has not yet left the AFL-CIO; as it currently stands, when my International dissaffilates - I will be forced out of office unless I agree to all of the provisions in the Solidarity Charter including the one disavowing my own union. As you can see, in their current form, the Solidarity Charters are not a realistic option when they contain provisions like that. It is my sense there is an on-going dialogue to address some of the provisions. The good news is - there is a continued dialogue. We need to be able to work together on a grassroots level - I can only see this thing evolving over the next many weeks and months. It's high time 'The House of Labor' took a long, hard look at itself and realized, it may be time for a different floor plan!

[benton]

Jacquie

I don't believe that the proposal as it stands calls for you to disavow your international. I know some AFL officers who have a dual affiliation with their old union and a new union. I recently heard Tim Nesbitt introduce himself as a mamber of an afl union (UAW?) and SEIU. (What a UAW member does on their own time is their business). In other words, you can stay even if your local goes.

And you can also stay if your local uses a solidarity charter. But I think that the much discussed "loyalty oath" calls on you to publicly support re-affiliation with the AFL-CIO if your international does disaffiliate. My own belief is that this is a silly requirement given that actions speak louder than words. However, being asked to support finding ways to work together through the AFL at all three levels (clc,state and national) is quite different from being asked to denounce or disavow your international.

As for a different floor plan, I think you are seeing the first steps towards one.

[Jacquie]

Benton

I do have membership in two other unions that are AFL affiliates, however, because I am an officer and employee of UNITE HERE I would not be able to use those memberships to remain in office. I concur with your comments - I think we are starting to see the beginnings of a new floorplan - hopefully one that will work to unite workers to speak truth to power and effect real change

[George]

Benton;
The release of the terms and the direction by the Federation of the proposal was the implementation.
In terms of vituperative weighing in...I think that neither side of the issue lacks in that department.
I realize that C2W forfeited its right to participate in Federation policy making through its disaffiliation. And here is where I think you may be missing the point. If you are proposing a policy that appears to be attempting to hold a structure in place (a proposal that in fact is contradictory to a previously stated position) wouldn't it make sense to propose a policy that may be palatable to the other side??? In serious contract negotiations you don't throw out a proposal that will incite the other side unless you are doing it for theater or looking to escalate the situation. If you don't know if it will incite then you go find out.
This proposal could have easily been floated without the punitive surcharge, which would be made ineffective by reducing the per cap member affiliation by 10% and not including the loyalty oath. Instead of a proposal of possibilities the proposal was DOA.
Your assertion that any proposal should be "cleared through the AFL's decision making process, including my own dues paying union", seems to be a bit late since the proposal was released to be voted on, by "dues paying affiliates" that is unless your union was one of the inner circle advising on this proposal.
Finally the idea that there are no back channel avenues of communication in Washington DC among people who have known each other for decades, in some instances, now that's what's silly.

[benton]

George -

These aren't contract negotiations. That implies that disffiliated unions are equal partners in deciding the structure of the AFL-CIO. They aren't. And they cannot be. The time for that kind of discussion was Chicago and they walked out.

And the proposal hasn't been voted on by the council as far as I know. So it hasn't been implemented. (THis is not an offer, an offer can be made by formal prospectus). I also disagree that the surcharge is punitive. I'm paying at three levels, so should everyone else at the table. I actually think it should be full per cap and the locals paying it get full rights to everything. But that opinion hasn't carried the day.

The requirement for a statement of loyalty is lame. But it is remarkably unsubstantive. And if the final product simply requires you to support the affiliation of your union with AFL, it is harmless. It gave C2W an opportunity to dump on the proposal. But if you think that it is what led C2W to dump on the proposal, I suggest you are being naive or star struck.

As for the AFL's process, until its voted on at the council it isn't policy.

People who support c2W are going to make all sorts of assumptions about the AFL-CIO's decision making. Many of those assumptions are likely to be geared towards the traditional union boss stereotype.

But the one healthy development coming out of this whole debacle is that decision making in the AFL appears to have changed. I hope that this is true. But raising the concept in open forums and having AFL CIO affiliate officers and CLC and state fed officers discuss it and debate it is good, right and proper. Why do you think it is silly?

[Bill Pearson]

Benton:
One thing that strikes me odd from the pro-Sweeney folks is this chest pounding that suggests the ctw gang needs to stay affiliated...and at any cost. They don't. They aren't encumbered with a bureaucracy that can't support itself. That's not to say they won't get there someday, but for now, they are holding all of the cash cards.

I think it is a sound gesture to try and stay involved, but if the cost is too high, they should walk/no run as fast as they can from the offers. There is no value in participation at any cost; hell it was barely worth it when we were voting members.

The other dynamic that has been mentioned, but barely touched on, is unions that have only paid percap on partials of their unions. Given the "tough" stance is John prepared to say all or nothing?

Having signed percap checks for near on twenty years, i doubt we will see this kind of strict enforcement. We never paid on all of the members, though the last five i raised the level of buy-in much higher than my predessesors.

I hope they can work things out. I see the Minnesota contingent has signed the petition; losing the ctw unions would severely cripple them. They do good work, but i have to believe there is a point where it would be far better to use the percap on programs to organize.

The one thing that should be clear is, threatening people or talking tough won't be the resolve. There aren't easy answers, and there may not be a resolution other than each going their own way.

On another note, congrats to JT for providing a venue of this calibre. I have been participating on interactive websites for better than three years and the level of discussion here is truly exceptional. Nice job JT, very nice.

[james]

I think once again good people are getting bogged down in the small details of a conflict, and missing the big – enormous – picture. The AFL-CIO’s plan for “Solidarity Charters” is a joke, not meant to include the CTW unions, but punish them. And instead of sweating the surcharge, whether that’s justifiable or not, and instead of worrying about what happens to individual leaders who may be caught in the middle, let’s ask a bigger question: why should anyone interested in building a new labor movement be worried about the CLC’s or State Feds?

What in the world is wrong with saying good-bye to the present structure of Central Labor Councils and State Feds? What are they contributing to a renewed union movement? I’d argue they’re exactly the kind of organizations we need to leave behind if we’re serious about building a new labor movement. And I’m not talking about the good people working in these organizations, of whom there are plenty. I’m talking about the organizations themselves and the ruts they’ve gotten themselves into in the last fifty years. Let me provoke folks with a question - if every single CLC and State Fed disappeared tomorrow, would the labor movement be any weaker than it is today? And if you shout out “of course it would, you idiot”, please tell me how and to what degree. Even if we concede that the answer to my provocative question is “yes”, the degree of loss is damn small, and what role the CLC’s and State Feds will play in building a movement is a mystery to me.

I personally see a huge difference between the work of the CLC’s and State Feds and the work of building a stronger labor movement. The CLC’s and State Feds work on behalf of existing union members, and usually lobby governments at various levels on behalf of the fraction of the population that actually pays union dues. That’s not about building unions; that’s about protecting the few perks and benefits we have left. And of course, there’s nothing wrong with that…IF that’s how you want to use the limited resources we have. But please don’t argue that it’s the same as building a stronger labor movement.

And the same goes for electoral work of the State Feds and CLC’s. We have gotten small returns – almost exclusively local – for all the time, sweat and money that the State Feds and CLC’s have poured into electoral politics. Yes, a handful of cities in the US are better places for all the electoral work done by a CLC, but not many, and the number is constantly shrinking. If you want to argue with that, will you please tell me where you’ve seen big gains, where the political landscape looks good for unions and working people, because I’d probably move there tomorrow.

I mentioned the big picture at the top of this note. Here’s what I’m talking about: what is this split in the labor movement about? I don’t believe it’s about egos or personalities, or money; it’s really all about finding the best way to build a stronger movement. And that will take CHANGING how we do our work. Everything ought to be on the table, because what we’ve been doing has not been working. We are failing and we need to change.

Instead OF CLC’s and State Feds, let’s start making new alliances and coalitions - NOT STRUCTURES - broadly, with lots of equal partners, that are effective at building unions. Would CLC’s and State Feds be part of these new alliances? We’d hope so, but given the level of bitterness and hurt prevalent right now, that would probably take some time.

We have been talking about working broadly for ages, and labor has built some good coalitions in the past, but I’ll bet, based on my own experience, that as many times as these coalitions have been formed with the help of CLC’s and State Feds, we have also failed to build coalitions because of positions of the CLC’s and State Fed’s, who have been afraid to take positions that their members may object to or have been too cautious about entering coalitions that might upset bargaining relationships. Of course, refusing to enter a coalition because of bargaining relationships is a valid and realistic position, IF you’re interested in protecting what you have.

But it’s shortsighted if you’re interested in building a movement. And it is not going to lead to CHANGE.

[Jacquie]

James

Bravo - your posting is right on! We all know that change can be frightening for some people - most people are comfortable doing what they know. But, what I know is the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. There have been far to many meetings, too much handwringing and a lack of a program that is designed with cause and effect in mind. I look forward to seeing the rubber meet the road!

[Victoria Woodhull]

Ranting and raving about a "movement" is all fine and well as theory in the hallowed halls of a college campus, but down on Planet Earth, structure and form to solidify worker's gains is very, very real.
Tell me, James and Jacquie, have you ever gone door-to-door on an organizing campaign? Have you ever sat across a kitchen table from two working parents with three kids and tried to convince them that what they needed to do was to be part of a "movement" as opposed to being part of an organization that would increase their wages and assure medical benefits? Do you really think that these folks will willingly be part of an amorphous movement instead of being part of an organization? Hey, I'm the one who is supposed to be brain dead.
In other words, are you capable of organizing your parents? If the answer is "no", please go get some calluses on your palms.
A "movement" sounds exciting. But real labor organizing is slugging it out each and every day.
As for your insults of CLC's...where do I begin? CLC's provide the organized core for many labor organizations. Yes, they're bureaucracies. Bureaucracies play an important role in the life of any organization. They provide stability and in the case of unions, provide a democratic template for activity.
Oh, sure, it’s exciting to follow who you may believe to be a charismatic leader, even if that so-called leader isn't interested in the albatross of a democratic process. It's much harder to go along and support some dull person, who after being democratically elected, is doing everything they can to keep an eye on the ultimate objective - maintaining an organization that speaks for labor.
Getting people from all walks of life to sit at a table to talk about their common economic interests has never been easy. CLC's bring together the disparate members of the labor movement. You have plumbers sitting with teachers sitting with city hall filing clerks.
The people that you so flippantly insult, the hard-working organizers and members of CLC's have years of experience and dedication behind them. They know a little about hard work and about working to build strong labor unions.
And yes, they should be paid for their efforts. How stupid is it for organizers, who are trying to convince workers that they deserve a living wage, to be paid less than a living wage?
Listen up, Tip died long after I did, but you need to hear something he said. He said, "All politics is local."
The CLC's recognize that and know that. They provide the local power.
In his discussion of child development, Piaget pointed out that if you hide your hand behind your back in front of a two-year-old, the two-year-old will believe that the hand has "disappeared". That is, if the two year old can't see it, well, it must not exist.
If you haven't seen the work, power, activity and importance of CLC's and state feds, or you haven't experienced the results of a well-run operation and its importance to labor, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Jacquie]

Victoria,

Just so youy know --- YES YES AND YES AGAIN I have spent the past 15 years housecalling workers in a rural state sitting across the table, in the front yard, in the kitchen of and in the garages of workers who want to have a better life. And not once did we talk about JOINING anything - belonging to a union is not like belonging to the AARP. Some of the most memorable things I have witnessed has been workers feeling enough self-empowerment in their guts to take on an unjust employer - even tho' they know they don't have enough money in their pocket to buy gas to get home at the end of a crappy day of cleaning crappy hotel rooms. It was not an organization that created that power - it was a feeling of knowing your co-workers and members of the community were standing there with you -- that is how I define movement! Just for the record as a State Federation President and active supporter of my area CLC I clearly see both organziations as critical to our successes - that doesn't mean to say that we don't need to examine and re-examine our strategies and structures - if something isn't working - let's change it!!!

[benton]

Bill

I promise you that not once did I pound anything in the typing of my last post. I don't think anyone needs to stay affiliated. Disaffiliation is a thing that internationals can do. I do disagree with you partially about the cash cards. UFCW and IBT have serious long term financial issues. This doesn't mean they are bad unions, they just have money problems. C2W is built around an acknowledgmenet of that.

What worries me isn't the chest pounding about affiliation, but the chest pounding from both sides about raiding. One of the reasons I want the solidarity charter idea to succeed is that I think by regularizing relations we can prevent some totally useless crap from happening.

I've already done work with people from all three disaffiliated unions on the Wal-Mart campaign and have done work with people from Unite-Here despite the fact they may disaffiliate. I've got friends in all three unions and the NEA to boot. They are still my friends. And I support coalition work. I'm not looking to punish anyone as long as they aren't raiding an AFL-CIO union. Which is why I think the loyalty oath piece is lame. I know some other people from affiliated unions have a different sort of bitterness from me about this. But I've already had to turn some pages in order to be effective in my work for the movement. If we can avoid war, they will too.

My own comments about this not being a contract negotiation come from simply not believing that disaffiliated unions should have any say in how the AFL-CIO formulates its policy. I am amazed that people think that disaffiliation elevates disaffiliated unions to the position of equal partnership with Sweeney on such issues. I think that reflects an inability to let go among any number of people on the C2W side. I'm not saying "SEIU should have stayed." I'm saying "What business is it of SEIU's what AFL does, they left." I think there is a difference.

As for free riding, my own position is that no AFL union should be allowed to free ride at any level. I hate that it can happen now. It weakens us tremendously. The four cent national per cap increase may have been a first step down this road. But more is needed. I'm not down with C2W, but I'm all too aware of the AFL's failings as well.

[benton]

Reading back on my last comment, I want to make a clarification. I do believe we are stronger together and that the C2W unions should be in the AFL. There are real structural limitations on what we can do particularly in politics without that. I think disaffiliation was a mistake, but its one that any union has a right to make.

[john williams]

There was a day when if you need 100 folks on the picket line you went to the CLC and made an announcement.

If you needed folks to ask their members if anybody had a friend, relative or neighbor working at Wal-Mart, you went to the CLC and said you were organizing there, please put the word out and give have anyone interested give you a call.

If you were having trouble with a management attorney you could go to the CLC meeting and ask if anyone had experience with the asshole.

If you needed a couple of thousand for food for strikers you could go to the CLC and ask for donations.

If you wanted to call a citywide general strike you went to the CLC.

That's the way I remember CLCs way back when. I've been hanging around with building trades instead too long, I guess.

But if we don't have CLCs its going to make these kinds of tasks that much harder. And what will replace CLCs? Will you have to call 20 locals every time you need these kinds of questions answered or actions taken?