Olive Branches Fly Between CTW and AFL-CIO

    As readers of this blog know, I've been holding fast to the belief that everything that can be done must be done to calm the waters between the AFL-CIO and Change To Win coalition. I maintained for a long time and still believe that, once the emotionalism of the AFL-CIO convention in July receded, smart people would get down to the reality of trying to organize the 90 percent of people who don't belong to unions.

    And evidence that a positive trend is picking up speed abound every day. First, came the pact between the CWA and Teamsters to jointly represent airline workers. Then, just this week came a peace agreement between SEIU and AFSCME that seems likely to halt any damaging raiding. And, now, a considered and detailed dialogue between John Sweeney and Anna Burger about the Solidarity charter proposal that Sweeney proposed as a way of keeping the Change To Win unions working with AFL-CIO unions.

    The exchange started with Burger's September 6th letter to Sweeney in which she restates  CTW's "willingness to resume discussions to determine how to overcome the barriers to our participation in the Solidarity Charter program." In the letter, she outlines the concerns, which I'll let you read for yourself.

    At the end of her letter, Burger suggests a "90 day 'moratorium' on any action at the state and local level, including, removing leaders from office, revoking membership, or disaffiliating from state or local bodies."

    Sweeney responded on September 14th with a respectful letter in which he attempts to answer Burger's concerns. He ends the letter by pledging not to seek enforcement of the AFL-CIO's Constitution regarding participation in local and state labor bodies for a period of one month through ending October 15th.

    For this post, I don't want to get into who is right or wrong in terms of the questions raised by Burger and Sweeney's answers. I wish Sweeney had agreed to a longer time period for the moratorium--these issues may be a bit more complicated than a period of one month can solve.

    But, the main point to take away here is this: there is dialogue going on here. Slowly, but surely, there is a recognition at the AFL-CIO that there is another Federation out there, and that it makes no sense to pretend otherwise. From CTW, it likely has heard from various corners that local union leaders wants to figure out a way to continue to work with AFL-CIO unions via the local and state labor bodies--and, where those bodies are good and effective, that makes sense to me.

    So, let the dialogue and building of cooperation continue--even as the two federations pursue different programs and strategies to build power.

Comments

[Carl]

Obviously this is a step in the right direction. But what the hell is with the thinking of having the deadline before the general election?

Carl

[siggy]

Please forgive me for being skiddish, Besides that I'm Canadian and on guard by default (refer to national anthem) - I am a ufcw member. Is this an Olive Branch or a molotov cocktail (rhetorical).

What's with the two year target (rhetorical). While it would give people a window to exercise their right to choose - something the "pact" obviously plays havoc with - it could also provide just enough time (projection: mine and I'm guessing theirs) for labour's explosion dust to settle (where were you when the earth moved?) - before a very purple ambush.

Nothing like a good battle when the troops are refresh'd, battle plans cement'd and the prey is off guard.

stern said to hell with democracy - why would he lie?

[Joe Hill]

I'm wondering, JT, when you are going to turn your attention to examining the (supposedly) "differing programs and strategies to build power". Isn't this what the split is supposed to be all about? So far we have heard a lot about the mishandling of the staff cuts by the AFL-CIO, how the split will impact the budget of the AFL-CIO, and the maneuvering between CTW and AFL-CIO over raiding and the CLCs, etc. We all know there are two federations, this is not news to anyone. But when are the "programs and strategies to build power" going to be on the agenda?

[Guillermo Perez]

Joe Hill, you're finally living up to your name. So, yeah, when are the programs and strategies to build power going to be on the agenda?

[anon]

With regard to programs and strategies,
I would say watch what unions do, not what they say.

I am sure that employers (and unions who are
competing in the same field) would love for the
CTW unions to broadcast in detail what their
plans are. Not going to happen.

But watch what people do. If a union mobilizes
large-scale resources for organizing, devotes
over half their resources to organizing, and
commits organizing staff for the long-term
to new regions, then it suggests that maybe
they have a plan.

If a union devotes a much smaller share of
their resources to organizing, and runs
a much smaller organizing staff here and
there all over the country, shutting
down under-staffed, under-resourced
campaigns in one state to cover a
crisis in another state, and then
moving them back again months later,
and nobody on staff knows where
they are going to be from one week
to another -- well, its clear to
everyone that they don't have a plan.

I speak from personal experience.
Enough said.

[John Williams]

Regarding the olive branches, its all good. The AFL/CWA AFSCME/SEIU "joint" employer-wide locals are a good compromise considering the alternative of raidng or a wage race to the bottom.

These arrangements remind me of similar coalitions from the salad days when industries were highly organized but several unions were involved and negotiated a single contract with employer associations. Those arrangements could not be decertified one employer at a time either. For instance for years, the IBT, IAM, sheet metal and painters in North Cal negotiated a single contract with the car dealers association that covered dozens of employers and hundreds of workers.

The Metal Trades Councils negotiate a single contract for a dozen shipyard unions with shipyard employers.

These arrangements stabilize labor relations. When I was younger I used to call these deals sell outs but I never dreamed that union density was on its way to "stabilizing" at 8%.

[Tasini]

Believe me, when the CTW unveils its programs, we will discuss them and people will have opportunities to critique them--I'm taking a wild guess here but I think there will be some critics. But, personally, I think we should focus on what seems to be an effort by both sides to mend fences. Whatever motivations people have ascribed to both sides--ego, power--here's a chance to pat both sides on the back. I'll take the words these various compromises and cooperative efforts express--and we can check back on the words down the road to see if they are meaningful

[d]

I am wondering if this particular teamsters-cwa pact is an indication/has an effect on the teamsters-cwa-ufcw-uaw pact that planned to organize indian gaming in upstate new york. i heard a lot about the gaming coalition in may/early june, but havent heard any since. has it just been hot air? has it evaporated because of afl-ctw problems? or is it back on now that the teamsters and cwa came to an agreement elsewhere in the country? does anybody have any info on this?

[anon]

Yeah, and what's up with UNITE-HERE and Indian Gaming in upstate New York? I had heard that before the merger HERE had successfully lobbied the state government to push for card-check agreements at those casinos, and it's hard to believe that they're out of the picture now. Anybody know anything?

[jim]

watch for CWA to push hard for organizing in upstate ny. They just took a hit with delta (CWA/AFA) and Cohen is very much into organizing.They need and very much want to expand their reach into Gaming/hospitality.

[Ben]

Jim,

just curious, what is the need for CWA to move into gaming/hospitality?

[Ty]

UNITE-HERE is devoting a huge portion of the international's resources to organizing Indian gaming, riverboat gaming, and other unorganized segments of the gaming industry, in order to build on its legendary power (and contract standards) in Vegas and Atlantic City.

A lot of ink has been spilled on this blog about CWA's disgraceful shenanigans in southern California Indian gaming, but let me reiterate: every dime CWA spends organizing casino or hotel workers is an insult to the hopes and dreams of all workers in both the hospitality industry and the telecom industry.