Correspondence with an international activist

Recently a labor activist in South Korea sent me a few questions about the state of US labor. Formulating a response to her gave me a bit of perspective on the present, so I thought I would post my response to her.

Hi w-s-

I think the current state of play is well indicated by this video


text of speech @ http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-afl-cio-executive-council

ie we get nothing but generalities and vagueness.


>>1. What would you say are major union’s (AFL-CIO, Change to Win, Unite Here, SEIU) main demands/platforms in relation to the economic crisis?

First of all, the AFL-CIO has no global analysis of the crisis. The cold war model of fighting for labor at home while making the world safe for capital flight abroad (which makes any coherent international position other than "anti-communism" impossible) was virtually hegemonic within the labor movement until AFL-CIO president Lane Kirkland stepped down in 1995, and his hand-picked successor was defeated by John Sweeney's "New Voice" Coalition.

Some time has passed since then, but the AFL-CIO has been very slow to adopt new policies. The schizoid nature of this process can be observed in the participation of the AFL-CIO in Seattle 1999 (a watershed event for labor participation in global politics), where the federation engaged in the protests a mere week after Sweeny endorsed the governments neoliberal global economic strategy. (see Fletcher & Gapasin, Solidarity Divided)

9/11, too, acted to conservatize the movement- I believe some within the federation hoped for a return to cold war capital-labor collaboration. This is the context for the rebuff Sweeny gave to the including the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, the Brazilian Central Unica dos Trabalhadores (CUT), and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). (see excerpt from Fletcher & Gapasin)

In part, this hesitancy of the AFL-CIO stems from the weakness of its structure as a federation- it is very much akin politically to the declining monarchies of Europe, where not upsetting the various constituencies results largely in a policy of inaction verging on paralysis. (more on these constituencies in a moment)

Nationally, the AFL-CIO is equally hesitant in emerging from the shadow of Democratic party platform. This results in naive and frightfully half-baked positions, notably: Made in USA. Pity for the working man. Good Jobs Now. The recent "Banks are Bad" has somewhat more potential, but is largely a hand-me-down from the right; after all, most unions were begging for the "bail-out."

AFL-CIO took a relatively weak stance in the spending of the "stimulus," mostly just happy that consumer demand was being lifted.

Change to Win is somewhat bolder, as it represents the unions which are either independent of the Democrats, or in the sectors of the economy which are less vulnerable to trade policy. Andy Stern, for example, was a strong supporter of health care reform, and got at least some of the measure he asked for in the health care bill- mostly those which guaranteed continued growth of health-care as a sector.

More recently, both camps have usefully contributed to the push for extending unemployment benefits, and for federal monies for local governments to prevent cutbacks on their members (teachers, firemen, police, gov't employees).


>>2. What's your take on the UNITE HERE split and SEIU's intervention in it? What was the reason for the conflict in the first place?

The split in Unite-Here is basically an echo of the split in the AFL-CIO, and a re-negotiation of its terms. SEIU, HERE, UNITE and the UFCW were the four unions catalytic to the original split.

The four unions have worked together closely (at least in US Labor terms) since 2003, when Stern, Wilhelm, and Raynor offered support to the UFCW on a key strike. Stern proposed to "join forces" and incorporate UNITE and HERE directly into SEIU (he probably made the same offer to the UFCW, too). So the notion of SEIU "intervening" is sort of redundant.

Neither Raynor (UNITE) or Wilhelm (HERE) wanted to be swallowed by Stern. It seemed that a tactical alliance could have worked- maybe it would have with more deft leadership or better advice- but it didn't. The seperation, though it was messy, was ultimately reasonable balanced and more-or-less just. HERE, roughly intact (though now called "Unite Here")- went back to the AFL-CIO; and UNITE's assets, members, and Bank went to SEIU, minus lawyers' fees and a "settlement" check. This is essentially the framework that UFCW president Hansen proposed in early 2009 (and Wilhelm rejected), with a larger settlement for HERE.



>>3. What's the relationship between CTW and AFL-CIO right now? (You said CTW is pretty defunct.. How much so?)

In the wake of the split, CtW seems largely a spent force. The immediate cause of the split was the resistance of unions to the idea that unions should merge into a few large unions. The UNITE-HERE merger was supposed to be the example, which doesn't exactly recommend the formula!

More broadly, the split was based on the idea that "growth-oriented" unions would be able to organize more effectively without the drag of non-growth-oriented unions. I think that this idea, too, is faulty.

Moreover, Stern has stepped down. Obama has called for "reunification" of the labor movement, and it seems so it shall be.( see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/08labor.html?ref=us ) [since I wrote this letter, UFCW's Hansen has become the new president of CtW- whether or not the coalition has any new life is dependent on him, and he seems to be a conciliator]

The split, at the end of the day, looks more a disintegration, a symptom of the weakness of the AFL-CIO and its inability to satisfy the divergent interest groups in the federation.

The first, the "protective" unions- public sector unions most of all, but also the downfallen manufacturing unions- allied around the democratic party's conservative wing. These unions were the stable core of the AFL-CIO sponsoring job preservation, health care, & pensions.

Second are the pragmatic "business" unions- the Teamsters, the Laborers, and the Carpenters (the Gompers-style "dinosaurs" that Fletcher describes). They had no particular affiliation to the democratic party, resented the political spending and the legacy costs of the AFL-CIO apparatus; the theatrics of a "split" were a convenient way out of the AFL-CIO and its high per capitas (as well as a way for the venerable federation to save face).

The third group was the catalytic force mentioned before, united under the banner of "service workers' unionism"- SEIU, UNITE, UFCW, and HERE- were not fearful that their jobs were "going overseas," indeed, their industries were growing, and took a more militant attitude, wanting to fulfil what they saw as promising opportunities for their unions to gain strength. A coordinated plan- in many ways a continuation of the strategies of the "New Voice" coalition- seemed wise given the dificulties involved in new organizing against the obstinate "union-free" environment in the U.S.

This was the stage for Sterns proposed mega-merger, and ultimately the wing of the CTW coalition the left would pin its hopes on.

"Services," however, is a term that hides more than it reveals however, and each of the "catalytic" unions also had significant portions in the other camps- particularly HERE, whose jurisdiction in hotels places it more naturally in the pragmatic camp, SEIU, which has elements of pragmatic unionism in its janatorial contracts, and protective unionsim in the form of healthcare and public worker contracts.

A final point about the CtW alliance, the broad consensus (even within the Sweeny administration) of "the need for new strategies." There was also a feeling (which grew quickly after Bush's re-election) that the unions needed an independent political strategy.


>>4. I think Trumka asked Obama about the EFCA recently and he said he's still think about it... What state is it in? Is it completely dead?


I think EFCA was dead on arrival. I never believed it stood a chance in hell of passing. Such bills are occasionially passed, but not under conditions like this.


Reform of the Taft-Hartley laws has been a goal of our movement every generation since they passed. Our movement in the U.S. is still too underdeveloped, to weak, and too traumatized.

The left is so scared of being called "socialist" that the Right is the only one talking about socialism at all!


>> 4. What were unions’ main goals for and main work at the US Social Forum? What do you think came out of the social forum?

Labor didn't have a caucus at the Social Forum- although one was proposed and seemed for a while like it would materialize. A product of poor organization and insufficient commitment. At "Netroots", there was a labor caucus, but I'm not sure they had much in the way of results.


>>> 5. Are there any other local struggles that you think I should highlight? I just talked to someone who works at UNITE HERE international as a research who said the campaign against the HYATT is worth looking at. Have any feelings about it?

The Hyatt struggle is legit. The LA Federation of Labor has gotten its act together (their president has just been placed on the AFL-CIO exec council, which is either the kiss of death or a hopeful development). I like some of the work the RWDSU has been doing in NYC.

In general, the growth of worker centers and immigrant rights groups in the past 10 years speaks to an atmosphere of union and political revivalism. While it is hopeful, and in some places (like LA) has achieved a level of connection with the "official" union movement, there is also strong evidence of the recalcitrance of the established unions, and an unjustified arrogance.