Laborers Finally Leaving?

    I heard a rumor on Friday that the Laborers International will pull out of the AFL-CIO on Monday (tomorrow). For those of you with long memories--say, going back to August--you may remember that the Laborers had decided to keep a foot in both  federations: joining up with Change To Win but remaining in the AFL-CIO.

    But, the Laborers also made clear that they would leave the AFL-CIO if they felt changes were not being made. It seems like that time has come. At the very least, this is another big hit on the AFL-CIO's already-beleagured budget: the Laborers paid about $2.2 million based on 2003 figures. So, it's in that range, give or take  a few thousand.

    There is a tele-press conference scheduled for Monday afternoon. I'll try to get to it but it's a busy day.

Comments

[Rob]

The Operating Engineers are joining the Laborers at the press conference (press release). Are they leaving the AFL-CIO too?

[John A. Joslin]

I think the musical chairs routine ( "departing" the AFL -CIO and "arriving " at CTW ) will go on for as long as the main actors can drag it out. When everybody , or most of them are settled into the new digs it's likely to soon be obvious that the migration was pretty useless. It's like there's a lot of door slamming going on & furniture being tossed out of the windows and when the commotion dies down ...both sides are peeking out to see who's paying attention. Nobody.

These people ( in both camps ) were so wrapped up in their self referential bureaucracy that it probably WAS a BIG DEAL for THEM to hatch plots about changing addresses & allegiances. They figured that since they were so-o-o important , even a simple thing like shuffling their seating arrangement was bound to be important too. Wrong on both counts.

Lately , the only thing they shared in common was contempt for the " membership " & in the end that wasn't enough to paper over their own mutual disrespect.

- get it over with, J.J. ( hopeful in Detroit )

[Rob]

So anyone know what the big announcement was?

[Peter]

The big announcement was that they're announcing it tomorrow.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-13-2006/0004280587&EDATE=

[Labor Dave]

It about time the AFL-CIO woke up !!!!

[Rob]

Well, it looks like indeed they have disaffiliated (pdf), at least from the Building and Construction Trades Department. Does this mean they're leaving the AFL-CIO as well?

The press release also refers to "several other construction trades unions" joining the Laborers and Operating Engineers. Any scoops on who that will be?

[Odie]

Looks like there is a third federation now for construction unions...does not appear to involve CtW v. AFL-CIO. All construction unions except IBEW, IUPAT, Plumbers and Sheet Metal Workers are a part of this 3rd alliance. LIUNA and IUOE are staying in the National AFL-CIO for now.

Statement of Terence M. O'Sullivan
General President, Laborers' International Union of North America,
And Vincent J. Giblin,
General President, International Union of Operating Engineers,
On Disaffiliation from the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department

February 14, 2006

Millions of construction workers in the United States go to work every day
doing the hard, dirty and sometimes dangerous labor of building America. Yet
while the construction economy has grown, living and work standards for
construction workers have fallen.
As two of the largest basic trades unions, with 1.1 million members, we
believe there is a better way -- a new path which helps construction workers
and construction contractors move forward together for better jobs and more
successful employers.
That is why our unions are disaffiliating from the AFL-CIO's Building and
Construction Trades Department effective March 1, and with several other
construction trades unions, forming the National Construction Alliance.
In today's construction industry, workers too often labor at unsafe
jobsites for sub-standard wages, few benefits and little hope of new
opportunity. And too often, good and decent union construction contractors are
undercut by unscrupulous competition.
This current state is related in part to the decline of construction
trades unions which improve living standards for workers and productivity for
contractors. Only a generation ago -- in 1973 -- construction unions and their
partner contractors represented 40 percent of construction workers and helped
ensure safer jobsites, fair wages, health and retirement benefits and a voice
on the job. By 2004, that had fallen to 14.7 percent, and by last year it had
plummeted to 13.1 percent. We cannot stand idly by, tied to a past that
promises only further decline for construction workers, their unions and
employers.
Our unions must change and adapt to today's construction industry. Indeed,
the current model for construction trades unions is rooted in a market and
economy of the previous century. We must build a movement that does
effectively address the construction industry as it is today, and which helps
the majority of our nation's construction workers have good jobs, good
training and a path for new opportunities.
Within weeks, we will be sharing details about the National Construction
Alliance, including its member unions and a strategy for moving construction
workers and construction contractors forward together.

[Kevin Norton]

It's a simple plan...... steal other Building Trades work by doing it for less.

[cj]

How did you arrive at this conclusion Kevin?

The National Building Trades has failed to acknowledge the realities of today's construction industry. Jurisdictional disputes continue to plague the unionized sector - yet the Building Trades insist upon using a "Plan" that relies upon archaic Decisions of Record/Agreements as the primary basis upon which to adjudicate disputes. A union may have spent decades building market share - only to have it wiped out by a stroke of a pen. That is patently unfair.

Secondly, there are Building Trades Unions that have failed to police their work and organize their core industries.

In this vacuum, unions that have the capacity to police and organize these industries should do so. It is ludicrous to sit back and watch it go non-union. To do so only places additional pressure on the rest of us (see 13% market share). In this day and age, that is totally unacceptable.

Craft jurisdiction and respect thereof is only as good as your market share.

[John A. Joslin]

Uh, ..no construction union has been able to hold its own ( unless a particular area was in the peak of a huge economic boom... ) since the institution of the NLRB administered "two-gate " system ( mid 1950's ) for ensuring that CONTRACTORS employing unorganized work crews could deploy their low- cost work force at any construction site without fear of union pickets effectively shutting the job site down.

That's important . Historically, organized construction workers could successfully ( & legally ) disrupt the operations of "rat " CONTRACTORS by employing "mass picketing " techniques; putting direct pressure on he EMPLOYER , disrupting or hindering the flow of people & materials ...the lifeblood of any construction job.

W/o that "organized " tactic to hold the EMPLOYER'S feet to the fire, the Building trade unions that have managed to " organize " new members , lately ,( Carpenters & IBEW ) have NOT come up with an associated increase in actual WORK to match their swelling ranks . The Int'l. unions have thus been forced ( or decided... ) to trade off working conditions , wages , & benefits in an attempt to entice EMPLOYERS to hire union members.

The mantra of " Market Share " is useful only insofar as the practitioner doesn't lose consciousness of conditions, wages & benefits while chanting...it's only too obvious that , failing a means to PRESSURE employers , WORK can indeed be gained by LOWERING the COST of the work force. The Building Trades Int'ls. have played this card to the hilt, reckoning that many " NEW " members won't know the difference ....since they have never had good wages, benefits , or conditions in the first place! Time gradually alleviates the concerns of the originally EXISTING members who are the only ones with a memory/appreciation for what's being bartered away for " Market share "..... they get too old to work construction . They retire on bad pensions, ...they die.

This "organizing" concept , that is ORGANIZING new union members under steadily WORSENING terms & conditions of employment is known to building trades union members as welcoming your own REPLACEMENT WORKERS into the union. The newbies are also referred to as" captured rats"; since they have neither any idea of what union construction workers should be paid, how they should be treated on the job, ( and treat EACH OTHER ! ) OR any idea of the other necessary AND practical uses of SOLIDARITY . As well, the strange little secret of building trades "organizing" is that it proceeds from the top down, it concentrates mainly on the employer; only secondarily on the eventual new UNION member . Many times, "rat " construction CONTRACTORS have to hold shop meetings to explain to their employees that they" have to become union members now..."

Imagine that scenario in an L.A. garment sweatshop.... the employer forcing the workers to "join up "... !? Doesn't happen ! Why ? Because in the real world, joining a union means an improvement in your daily working life AND an increased COST to the employer. Any sensible employer would resist hiring a union work force. PRESSURE is always required unless there is a sweetheart deal.

So far , the Carpenters & the IBEW ( electricians ) have tried to play off their sweetheart or "yellow dog " labor racketeering scheme as a bold, new "organizing " strategy. The jury... the memberships of these unions is deliberating.

John A. Joslin , Local # 58 IBEW , Detroit