Labor Must Stay United, Focus on Organizing
The current debate over the direction of the AFL-CIO has forced a wide-ranging discussion of ways to reverse the long-term decline of organized labor. Unions have issued various proposals, but five large "dissident" unions (Teamsters, United Food and Commercial Workers, Laborers, SEIU and UNITE-HERE) have drawn the most attention with plans to shift resources from the AFL to the unions, under the condition that the funds be used for organizing more workers. This would reduce the role of the AFL-CIO and shift labor's overall focus somewhat from political action to organizing work.
At the recent executive council meeting in Las Vegas, the dissidents were defeated, with AFL-CIO President John Sweeney instead winning a vote to increase spending on political action. But there will likely be another fight at the federation convention in July, under a cloud of threats from some unions to leave the AFL-CIO entirely. A split would be a disaster, leading to years of squabbling over leadership of the movement and a shrinking base of organized workers. Organized labor might never recover from such a move.
Some of the debate has been driven by personality issues and battles over turf and resources. But recent history suggests that the dissidents have a point. A union investment of perhaps $140 million in the Kerry campaign obviously fell short. And even when labor has elected Democrats, the decline in union membership has continued and national policy has stressed economic growth over improving the lives of working people.
The labor movement cannot wait until the political stars are aligned to turn to full-bore organizing-it is already down to 12.9% of the workforce, down from 32% in the 1950s and 20% as recently as 1983. The lesson from 2004 is not that labor didn't try hard enough to elect Kerry, but that there are not enough union members to elect a pro-worker President. If labor can reverse its decline, it will benefit both workers and progressives in the long run.
John Brodkin is an ADA member and former Executive Director of the Greater Washington chapter. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of ADA.
Click for Statement of Principles from reform unions.
At the recent executive council meeting in Las Vegas, the dissidents were defeated, with AFL-CIO President John Sweeney instead winning a vote to increase spending on political action. But there will likely be another fight at the federation convention in July, under a cloud of threats from some unions to leave the AFL-CIO entirely. A split would be a disaster, leading to years of squabbling over leadership of the movement and a shrinking base of organized workers. Organized labor might never recover from such a move.
Some of the debate has been driven by personality issues and battles over turf and resources. But recent history suggests that the dissidents have a point. A union investment of perhaps $140 million in the Kerry campaign obviously fell short. And even when labor has elected Democrats, the decline in union membership has continued and national policy has stressed economic growth over improving the lives of working people.
The labor movement cannot wait until the political stars are aligned to turn to full-bore organizing-it is already down to 12.9% of the workforce, down from 32% in the 1950s and 20% as recently as 1983. The lesson from 2004 is not that labor didn't try hard enough to elect Kerry, but that there are not enough union members to elect a pro-worker President. If labor can reverse its decline, it will benefit both workers and progressives in the long run.
John Brodkin is an ADA member and former Executive Director of the Greater Washington chapter. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of ADA.
Click for Statement of Principles from reform unions.
1 Comments:
Agreed. Organizing and being visible on everyday issues that matter most in the actual workplace would be more beneficial in the long-term than continuing to make the central purpose of the labor movement a Washington only affair.
It is a tough question though. A real chicken or egg first sort of deal. I say go with the egg. The chickens don't seem to be ruling the roost effectively without that needed base support.
Post a Comment
<< E-Liberal Home