AFL Discriminates Against UFW

    This story makes no sense to me. When the AFL-CIO announced the concept of Solidarity Charters, I thought it was a good idea once the kinks got worked out with the Change To Win federation. It was a strong step towards realizing that everyone needed to figure out how to work together, and that, frankly, it was entirely irrelevant what bureaucratic structures each international union chose to be part of.

    But, there's a new twist. In a January 30th letter written to State Federations and Central Labor Councils, John Sweeney says that the United Farm Workers, which disaffiliated from the AFL-CIO last month, was not eligible to be part of Solidarity Charters--nor would any other union that leaves the AFL-CIO from this day on. Here's the main part of the letter:

As you know, the United Fram Workers union recently notified me of the union's decision to disaffiliate from the AFL-CIO. This was an extremely disappointing development, particularly given the Federation's long history and tradition with the UFW and the considerable support--financial and otherwise--that the AFL-CIO has provided to the UFW in its struggles. My letter to UFW President Arturo Rodriquez concerning the union's decision to disaffiliate is attached.

Since the disaffiliation, questions have been raised about whether locals of the UFW are eligible to remain affiliated with state federations and central labor councils through Solidarity Charters. Please be advised that the Solidarity Charter program authorized by the AFL-CIO Executive Council applies to five unions: the UFCW, the Teamsters, SEIU, UNITEHERE and the Carpenters. Eligibility for Solidarity Charters is limited to locals of these unions. Local of the UFW or of other unions not affiliated with the national AFL-CIO are not eligible to affiliate with state federations or central labor councils through Solidarity Charters or other means.

    Huh? What is the point of this edict? I can only surmise that the thinking is two-fold. First, someone might believe that by keeping Solidarity Charters limited to the unions that originally left the AFL-CIO, other unions might think twice before joining Change To Win if they are concerned about not being able to participate in the AFL-CIO local bodies. Second, it's not too far down the road to see the Change To Win federation becoming larger than the AFL-CIO--the Laborers are leaving sooner rather than later and other unions are discussing the same option (don't you think that the creation of a competing building trades structure is a omen that other construction unions are sniffing in the direction of Change To Win?); perhaps there is a desire to limit the influence of Change To Win unions inside the local labor councils.

    Which makes zero sense. Does anyone at 16th Street really believe that a union is going to stay in the AFL-CIO simply because it won't be able to get a Solidarity Charter? And wasn't the point of Solidarity Charters to make it possible to work on labor and political action without regard to federation, because that was better for workers?

    Blowing off the UFW is one thing--not many AFL-CIO labor councils are going to feel that. But, it's hard to imagine this will stand once the Laborers jump ship--AFL-CIO councils will feel the absence of the Laborers and they will either squawk about the discrimination or ignore the AFL-CIO edicts from Washington, D.C..

    It was smart for John Sweeney to agree to the Solidarity Charters and he was able to show flexibility by agreeing to Change To Win's requests to make changes to the original plan. I hope he sees that this current discrimination isn't workable--and isn't advisable.

Comments

[belleunion]

That is bizarre.

And on an unrelated note, did anyone check out the new AFL blog (launched yesterday)? Continuing their clueless approach to internet organizing, they seem to have launched a blog where no one can comment.

[cj]

Cue additional layoffs at the Federation...

[John A. Joslin]

Appears the AFL is girding for the the final defeat that has lately eluded them at the hands of their trad adversaries , the movahs & shakuz w/ the big biz connections... The "Sweenster " is probably clearing out his desk now , ready to pack it in; thankful that he's about to be finally RELIEVED of duty by mugs sporting pro-labor lapel pins instead of N.A.M. tie clips.

On a sentimental note, Sweeney is in usual AFL-CIO form hanging the Farmworkers out to dangle on the nearest hook .... Yielding to the familiar old practice of conflating the front office w/ the actual farmworkers.... the shrewd ol' gravedigger figures the tiny band of farmworkers is the EASIEST target in all of what's left of organized labor. Shit, might as well rake them over the dying coals... they're USED to humiliation , the raggedy little bastards... and oh yeah, ALL that "support " we gave 'em . Kinda' makes you mad , doesn't it Johnny ? ...they prob'ly blew it all on baloney sandwiches, bus tickets, & Coronas.

On a poetic note, looks like J.Sweeney is about to finally make good on his trade mark pledge to stay with us : " just one day longer.."

[John Foster]

Wow, sounds like Sweeney is going off the deep end. Any idea how the Change to Win Federation is going to relate to this development? It will be interesting to see how they react.

John Foster
GCC/IBT Local 4C

[anon]

So when they merge with SEIU, they're in, right?

[ice9]

unitehere will soon threaten to withdraw from the state feds and clc's (unless sweeney reverses his course)

[Kevin F Droste]

Considering the excellent record of the work done by the CLC's and State Feds on the political front (overwhelming Republican domination of all branches of government) does anyone really care who pulls out? Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to dump anything that has proven itself so ineffective and useless.

[anon]

the UFW doesn't have 'locals,' that i'm aware of. also, this is only relevent in California, where UFW's members are.

[leftcoast]

This is only partly about the UFW, who Sweeney et al probably find a bit... ungrateful....
It's mainly a shot across the bows of LIUNA, whose departure will be a real hit to the AFL's bank account.

[pw]

If UFW didn't even bother to ask, then I don't see why they should take it for granted that they'll be able to get in on the solidarity charter deal-- it is all about negotiating terms, isn't it? They picked up $600k just last year from the AFL-CIO for organizing-- and no results to show for it, either. That's money from your per capita payment.

[ice9]

the afl's claim that it supported the ufw financially is no secret. that doesn't make the farmworkers beholden to the afl. in fact, i would arge that the ufw did more for the labor movement and the afl during cesar chavez's time than any other union. if anything, we as a labor movement are indebted to them.

[Ben]

Its kind of amusing to read the AFL's announcementabout solidarity charters now:

http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/ns08262005.cfm

all the quotes from sweeney about working together on the local level and how "change to win locas" will be able to do this and that. There was an agreeement that was bargained, and I would assume put in writing. if this action against the UFW doesn't violate the letter of that agreement it certainly violates the spirit of it. If an employer pulled this crap in interpretting a contract we would give 'em hell.

While neither side can claim to be angels in this dispute, Sweeney is pathetic.

BTW, I think its time for the AFL to drop the CIO. they've completely rejected the idea of industrial organizations, so why keep it in their name? (and while I'm at it, change to win is the worst name ever.)

[zen15]

I am so sick of your leftist elitist bias. It is completely sickening that SEIU is using the Farmworkers to make yet another dig at Sweeney and the AFL in general, and its even more sickening that the UFW is allowing that. But then again, as the LA Times series recently claimed, maybe there's no there there for the UFW any more. All they have left is the image that makes them a "cause" for upper-class leftists like Andy Stern.

Has anyone out there seen CTW do anything to benefit workers? Where's all the energy you promised, JT? All I hear is that there is more dissent among the CTW unions than there ever was within the AFL. Hoffa still wanting to organize in every jurisdiction, from A to Z, as he puts it. UFCW and SEIU are having a nasty battle over Wal-Mart, a very public one at that. UNITE HERE launching the same failed campaign it did two years ago. So where's the beef?

I say let CTW do whatever it wants. Just recognize that there are problems there, too. And stop bashing the AFL. It serves absolutely no valid purpose.

[John A. Joslin]

I hereby assert that any bashing of the AFL done by me is NOT on behalf of the CTW ... OR in an attempt to cast them in a better light. I honestly see no diff between the two. They both WILL do whatever they want ... which will likely be VERY little ... in any case. I think their continued existence hinders the organizing of labor, present & future union members included.

[RicoVado]

It seems to me that this is neither complicated nor outrageous: the AFL-CIO is trying to discourage other unions from leaving the federation. And if Solidarity Charters are available to any union, whenever they choose to disaffiliate from the national AFl-CIO, well that doesn't help things, from the perspective of the national AFL-CIO.

Now, strangely enough, it is my understanding that the AFL-CIO has already abandoned this position, and is now saying that UFW locals can affiliate through Solidarity charters.

And, again this is just my opinion, that says a lot about the shakey, shell-shocked hands guiding the federation. If you had stuck to your guns and said no, what do you lose? Let CTW follow through on their threat to pull "their" locals out of the CLCs. Let CTW play the role of the heavy-handed, inside-the-beltway bureaucrats trying to call the shots on the local level in Portland and Cleveland. We know that didn't work so great for the national AFL-CIO before the advent of Solidarity Charters. Let CTW see how good a job it can do of dictating terms for the local labor movement.

But, as usual, when presented with a winning hand and a strategic advantage, the AFL-CIO spit the bit.