Will "Solidarity Charters" Work?

    So, yes, all of you have written to ask (geez, didn't know there was that much interest in this meeting) not much happened at the Building and Construction Trades Department meeting (as one participant said, "alot of meaningless resolutions and even more meaningless speakers"). Except that John Sweeney did talk about his concept of "solidarity charters": that would be kind of an associate membership that allows locals from the unions that left the AFL-CIO (SEIU, Teamsters and the UFCW...with more to come) to continue to belong to the Central Labor Bodies and State Federations. This is a modification from Sweeney's previous positions, expressed prior to the convention, at the convention and soon after the convention.

    UPDATE: I've obtained a copy of John Sweeney's August 10th memo to the Executive Council asking for approval of the Solidarity Charter concept, which outlines the idea and comes along with the EC ballot and talking points.

    I know eyelids of our many new readers, many of whom don't breathe the air of organized labor, might be about to droop closed here but this means something in the world of electoral politics and organizing. So, here's the very short primer.

    If you ask the good labor activists, they will tell you a lot of hot air gets expelled at the national level and the real work gets done locally; a lot of that work gets done through local structures, either central labor councils (CLCs) or state federations. If you're in the AFL-CIO, any local union (say, your local teachers union or construction workers local) can belong to these local structures and they pay dues to belong.

    The truth is that there may only be 50 really crack central labor bodies around the country--out of  hundreds. Some of that is because there's not enough money in CLCs (not all unions belong or, when they belong, don't pay dues on their entire membership size); some of it is because the CLCs and State Feds are just places that union leaders park themselves (or get parked as a way of moving someone out of real power) with titles but not much energy to do anything.

    The single-most constant use of these CLCs and State Feds comes during election campaigns. They often end up, where they are effective, being the centers for coordinating mass phone-banking, canvassing, and get-out-the-vote operations.

    So, why are the "solidarity charters" being proposed? The national AFL-CIO was facing a mini-revolt at the local level; Central labor council leaders were pretty openly talking about defying the national AFL-CIO's edict that local unions from national unions that had disaffiliated from the AFL-CIO had to be kicked out of the local bodies.

    From the local point of view, the disaffilations of national unions was just a pissing match between a small group of people and had very little to do with relationships at the local level. CLCs had their own solution. And as recently as this past weekend, I pointed out how New York labor was explicitly continuing to work together, witness the joint appearance at the press conference to condemn the two so-called Democrats Gregory Meeks and Edolphus Towns, both of whom voted for CAFTA (do you think I'm obsessed or what?)

    But, if they work, this could be a good step towards keeping the lines of communication open between unions whether they are in the AFL-CIO or not. And it bolsters my view that the language of the "split" could be overdone, if everyone realized, once the harsh words and hurt feelings subsided, that the ultimate challenge is to organize millions of workers and people should not be so focused on what "House" they get organized into. Whatever the reasons for his changed position, Sweeney should get credit for not being stubborn because my guess is that there were more than one or two national presidents who wanted to keep the hard line and boot the disaffiliated locals from here to kingdom come.

    There are two issues to watch as we get more details on how these "solidarity charters" will work:

1. While the disaffiliated locals can work with the CLCs or State Feds by paying some dues, they do not get a seat on the CLCs or State Feds governing bodies. We will have to see whether that sits well with local leaders or their national presidents. Yikes, no political power??? You gotta be kidding...

2. The slightly skeptical part of me wonders how much of this proposal is about the AFL-CIO's crushing deficit created by the departure of the three big unions. It's not going to close the entire $25-$27 million hole but the "solidarity charters" call for a surcharge on top of the normal dues usually paid that will go to cover costs of services provided by the national unions and the AFL-CIO. I assume some or all of that money will find its way into the national AFL-CIO's treasury.

Comments

[Barb in Athens, GA]

Just read you "Birthday Bush Wants to Ignore" article in today's (08-11) edition of TomPaine. I agree with EVERYTHING you wrote. But I also have something to add: If the neocons get their way, this ***&&%K%$$++ (swear words eliminated out of politness to your readers) administration will (a) invade Iran and (b) declare that ALL domestic programs -- including SS -- that protect the young, the old, the poor (already flushed down the toilets), working mothers without childhood (ditto), the homeless...of course you get my drift; no need to cite further examples -- (to continue sentence begun after (b) -- and have a great excuse to cut ALL domestic spending, including SS. Funding of public education -- they already have ceded that field to the religious right. I once read a book called "Cassandra at the Wedding." It was so long ago that I can't even remember who wrote it. But (as many if not most of you know) Cassandra was the mortal seduced (raped?) by Zeus; in return for her "favors" he gave her the gift of seeing into the future. The rule -- back in ancient Greece -- was that one god or goddess couldn't cancel a gift granted by another. But they could find ways to nullify it. (Sound familiar? If not, think "stem cell research.") Anyway, Hera -- Zeus's goddess wife -- couldn't cancel Cassandra's gift of prophesy -- but she WAS able to (and did) impose her own nullification: i.e., anything Cassandra predicted would not be believed. Sound familiar? As in warnings prior to 9/11?? As in the lies involved in our pre-planned invasion of Iraq? As in the catering to Halliburton, who somehow, mysteriously "lost" billions of dollars without being called on to account for the loss? As in Bush's leaving for a month-long vacation on his faux ranch -- I keep writing (mainly to BuzzFlash) that I'd bet the farm (if I had one) that staffers fly to Crawford to plant more brush (so he can be reported/photographed clearing it). Not to mention installing training wheels on his bicycle. And pre-chewing his pretzels.

Bush's refusal to even MEET with Cindy Sheehan has me so livid that I'm making typos in every 3 words I write. (Won't catch them all. Please forgive. I AM VERY ANGRY!) He sent her son, Casey, to die for a totally unnecessary (except to the powers that be -- but I hope won't be for long) war in Iraq that -- as TomPainers know already (I'm preaching to the choir here, but I need to vent) was totally pre-planned, unjustified, and based on lies.

Thanks for getting it right. Keep up the good work.

Barb in Athens, GA
Blue soul (born and raised in metro NY) in Red state

P.S. Your site -- and other progressive sites -- are keeping me sane. Well, at least barely! Sometimes I lose it!!

[Carl]

As someone who works closely with one of the 50 or so crack CLCs - who were facing severe budget problems - I sure hope this works. At least Sweeney pulled back from the brink a little bit. Hopefully the 10% isn't too much to stomach.

Carl

[LaborVet]

Thanks, Brother Tasini, for ruining my day. I was hoping the AFL-CIO would sober up and do right, but these documents you've posted show that the tit for tat game is not over.

You've got to read the actual Solidarity Charters document to get what the AFL is up to, not the talking points or memos or quotes in the newspaper.

The actual document is written to be rejected by the Change unions. That is the intended outcome.

My favorite is that to hold office in a central labor council if you are from a Change union you have to denounce your union's decision not to be part of the National AFL-CIO. Yeah, right.

Another good one is that even though you are a local of a Change union, you agree to be bound by whatever actions or decisions of the Federation that are binding on all affiliated local unions. In other words, to be part of a LOCAL council you have to effectively do what the NATIONAL AFL-CIO tells you on any subject.

This is vintage AFL-CIO stuff - the same routine that made the Change unions leave in the first place. Clever news release rhetoric matched by fine print that deliberately undermines the supposed purpose, which in this case is supposed to be letting the local councils go on like before.

When are the local councils going to wise up and tell the National AFL-CIO that since the Change unions want their locals to stay in and pay into the CLCs like in the past, there is one really constructive thing the AFL-CIO could do: just shut up.

[Lee]

Does anyone have a copy of the charter that can be posted? As LaborVet said, it's the fine print that will get ya.

[Victoria Woodhull]

I'm no big fan of Sweeney's but the C2W unions ARE a minority of the federation. They didn't win the votes to get their guy in - so they are, in effect, destroying the organization. So much for their adherence to democracy... So someone please explain to me how it is that anyone would want to join any of these unions who thumb their nose at a democratic system? Or is the answer in some Stalinist screed that I have yet to read? After all, I died before Stalin was around.
Maybe the Stern/Wilhemlm guys are so brilliant that we should trust their judgement? Silly me for thinking that there was some logic to their destructive actions. Now, they won't even play according to the rules of the umbrella organization of the CLC's. I think the membership of the Stern/Wilhelm unions should revolt against their dictatorial, anti-democratic leaders!

[Mother Jones]

I just noticed that Change to Win has posted a response to Sweeney at ChangeToWin.org

[LaborVet]

In response to Lee, the fine print starts on page 5 of the document Brother Tasini posted. It's all there already.

[Ben]

As a member of SEIU, I have to say you have no idea what you are talking about Victoria. People want to be part of SEIU because we have a vision and a strategy that works. Because we unite people who do the same job in the same union so they can have the power to make changes in their lives. Most union members, forget non-union workers, don't have any idea what the AFL-CIO is or does, largely because the AFL can't decide what it is or should do.

At my local at least, we've been advocating for major changes for years. We fought with Sweeney when he was president of SEIU over making substantive change. We revolted against him then, and we've been pushing the international to make change since he went to the AFL. Some of those changes include spending tons more money on organizing, and because of that growing by leaps and bounds, getting rid of double salaries for local leaders who serve on the international executive board and restructuring SEIU's locals along industrial lines to win better contracts.

Frankly, if Stern would have had more of a revolt on his hands if hadn't challenged Sweeney and the AFL. Just because Stern is the voice of SEIU (which he is elected to be, btw) doesn't mean he's coming up with all these ideas on his own and shoving them down our throats.

[please]

spare me the SEIU rah rah BS. This is all do disgusting and so horribly disingenuous. SEIU is the LEAST democratic union out there. We all know that. We've kept out mouths shut about that because of labor solidarity.

The CTW unions left the Federation. They no longer pay dues. Now they want to set their own dues structure at the local level, and THEY want to decide what rules will apply to them. That is nothing but arrogance. They're free loaders, pure and simple. Of course they have to pay more than affiliates. That's what membership is all about--paying your way. And the national per caps subsidize some of the local work. SEIU just wants AFL-CIO members to fund them. That's not fair, no matter how you spin it.

[Kate Bronfenbrenner]

When the split happened my feeling was that the only way that the labor movement was going to hold on to the kinds of coalitions that have been essential to making significant gains in organizing, bargaining, or politics would be if a) Sweeney found a way to rise above the desire to be punitive and develop some kind of umbrella structure that allowed the CTW unions still to be part of the CLCs and State Feds in some way and b) CTW affiliates made an immediate public pronouncement that they would cease and desist from all raiding for any reason of AFL-CIO affiliates (and vice versa). Well Sweeney's action today was an important step in that direction and I think should be seen as a positive rather than a defensive gesture. In turn, I believe that a no raid announcement by the CTW in response could then pave the way to work out whatever problems there may be in the way the Solidarity Charter language was written to start with. Both sides have got to do the hard work of not letting either arrogance or wounded pride get in the way of doing what is right and necessary to hold the labor movement together where and when it needs it most--in local CLCs, state feds, company and industry councils, and global union federations. For it is these arenas where unions and their allies have to come together the same as ever, regardless of whether they are CTW or AFL-CIO to take on the boss, the government, or the world's financiers. No the charters are perfect but they still are better than CLC meetings where CTW member are excluded. This is a new playing field and everyone is trying to figure out how to keep fighting the boss with one hand while they figure out how to sort out the new rule book for interacting with their union allies with the other. The less complicated that sorting out goes, the more energy can be spent on keeping that fight escalating with the boss. I believe this is a step in that direction.

[LaborVet]

Kate, I encourage you to read the details and not the short form. A fair minded person would say that the AFL-CIO drafted something they knew would not fly but that they hoped would let them say to the CLCs, "Well, we tried."

I've seen all kinds of statements by the Change unions committing publicly that they are committed to no-raid agreements with the AFL-CIO unions. But the operative word there is "agreements" (or in your sentence, the throwaway phrase "and vice versa." Taking SEIU and AFSCME as the example since they seem to be the leading candidates for war breaking out, it would be reasonable for SEIU to expect AFSCME to negotiate a two-way agreement and not just a unilateral policy by one union. Until there is an agreement, the only incentive AFSCME has not to do again what it did in the Illinois child care situation is if it thinks SEIU might do the same somewhere else.

So it seems that you should not be putting all the no-raid burden on the Change unions but putting it on both sides.

[Bird]

Anna Burger's Response http://www.changetowin.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B2F62B3AC-292A-48EB-ABC8-D1D9B97645A7%7D

Now, faced with a revolt at the local level, the AFL-CIO has taken a position that uses the rhetoric of unity but is designed to provoke unnecessary division. The fine print of its proposal provides that Change to Win local unions would be subject to…

• A ban on participation in local and state leadership.
• A requirement to be “bound by whatever actions or decisions of the [national] Federation that are binding on all affiliated local unions.”
• A requirement that to hold elected office in a council, an individual from a Change to Win union must publicly oppose their own union’s democratically determined decision regarding national affiliation.
• Discriminatory fees.
• A provision that Change to Win locals’ participation in local or state councils expires at the end of next year, and that in the meantime they could not withdraw from the local council or state federation for any reason.

A proposal that includes fine-print poison pill provisions like these seems designed to appear to be responsive to the desire for local unity without actually helping to make that unity possible.

[Kate Bronfenbrenner]

I read the full document before I posted my comments, that's why I said it needs to be looked as a starting point. But this isn't a nuclear war where neither side can afford to put down their arms for fear the other side will blow them up first. This is the labor movement, there is room for risk taking, making counter proposals, and finding common ground while still staying true to different vision. So I'm saying I think Sweeney making this proposal is better than holding firm to a stance that the constitution says non-affililiates cannot under any circumstances be part of local and state feds. That doesn't mean that I think that CTW shouldn't, as they have, raise their concerns about elements of the proposal that they think are problematic but then they should propose a counter proposal that they think would deal with the new realities of a divided labor movement but still allow for some coming together in local and state federations.

[Kate Bronfenbrenner]

As for the no-raid. You may not have seen my earlier remarks on decertifications but they were directed at both sides. Namely, I have watched to many challenge elections turn into three way races between the two unions and the employer anti-union campaign, and have the winner be "no union." At this time with union density as low as it is neither side should be waiting for the other to be the first to sign the no raiding pledge. Raiding is simply suicide. We don't have the resources to waste on small units, we don't have the resources to waste on elections we can't win, and we don't have the resources to waste on shooting each other, or waiting for the other side to drop their weopons first. So who ever decides to pledge to stop raiding and focus all their energy on new organizing has the winning strategy either way. Somebody has to be smart first.

[Carpenter]

This solidarity charter stuff is not a bad idea in general. (Can't they call it something else, like associate membership? Solidarity charter is so 1930's.) But the terms are not that great. We have to pay 10% extra (which goes to BCTD, which doesn't do anything for the local building trades), can't hold office, and have to abide by all BCTD and AFL-CIO decrees, including Article XX and XXI. I can't see us going back into our local building trades under these conditions. But we will go to the meetings and participate in the PLA's.

By the way, don't call us "free riders" because we're in the PLA's. Contractors would not sign multi-trade PLA's without us. Everybody, at least all the big trades, has to sign the PLA's to get the contractors and owners to go along with them. And don't call us "free riders" on politics either - we have more organizers than the rest of the trades combined, and are the only trade with a full-time local political director in this area.

We have enough problems here without meddling from Washington - imposing 10% fees and not doing anything but argue. They need to leave us alone.

[Tom Lewandowski]

In the backwaters of Indiana the policy pronouncements and edicts coming from the AFL-CIO and Change to Win are losing news appeal. It seems workers and unionists are taking greater interest in solidarity locally.
Our labor day picnic is an annual ecumenical event in which unions not affiliated regionally such as UAW or those nationally excommunicated such as the UTU join with affiliated locals to throw money and volunteers into the kitty for a chili, hot dog, beer, kid rides kind of picnic. Before the AFL-CIO convention donations and interest for the picnic were at an all time low. We considered canceling it for lack of funds and interest. Before we could issue the great panic call but after the ship wreck at Navy Pier, money started coming in and now we have more donations than we have ever had. I’m beginning to worry about what to do with all the money. (We’ll figure it out)
Immediately after the AFL-CIO convention our Workers’ Project held the annual Cultures of Solidarity Workers’ Meetings. Local, regional and global participants left the meetings enthused, inspired, empowered, and even more dedicated to solidarity but that isn’t my point here. As exhilarating as Cultures of Solidarity was to participants, the public view was surprising. We don’t measure our success by column inches in newspapers or story placement but we don’t hide from the media. We allowed the media into our meetings and even invited a certain news buffeted national labor blogger to participate. Local TV news covered the story repeatedly and sometimes as the lead story. Before one of the morning sessions a union organizer pointed to the business page headlines of the Fort Wayne daily paper. In the middle of the page “Third union breaks from AFL-CIO lines.” Bold at the top of the page with a picture “Global labor unites for rights.” The Solidarnosc organizer thought it was eloquent. All solidarity is local then it can become global.

[ThomJefferson]

"The CTW unions left the Federation. They no longer pay dues. Now they want to set their own dues structure at the local level, and THEY want to decide what rules will apply to them. That is nothing but arrogance. They're free loaders, pure and simple."

You have to be kidding?? Local members having a say on how their Union spends THEIR money?? Oh the arrogance!!
I'm a Union WORKER, not an Administrator, not a Lobbyist, not some worthless Union Bureaucrat--- I am the guy who buys their groceries. And as a twenty year member of the UAW, I relish the day the workers fire their worthless, partisan, Liberal-Socialist, asses.

[Adam Butler]

I totally agree with what you're saying. I wish more people felt this way and took the time to express themselves. Keep up the great work.
Adam Butler
http://www.aircharterbargain.com