AFL-CIO splits - SEIU, Teamsters leave

[Severian]

The main union federation in the U.S. has split, with labor bureaucrats squabbling over how to reverse the decline of union membership...and the dues base they live on.

The differences are relatively superficial; both sides favor collaboration with employers and support to capitalist politicians. Neither favors democratizing the unions and a militant fightback by the rank-and-file.

The breakaway faction favors spending more money on organizing and less on politics...they aren't opposed to reliance on big-business politicians, though...they just favor supporting the occasional Republican rather than all Democrats. (The Teamsters endorsed Bush in 2000, for example.)

L.A. Times basic news article on the split (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-labor26jul26,0,4502388.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

Andrew Stern, the leader of the split, explains his reasons (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stern26jul26,0,7212794.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions) Contains a false analogy to the origins of the CIO.

History News Network: Why this analogy is false (http://www.hnn.us/articles/13371.html)

The Militant explains the basis of the faction fight and why neither side has anything to do with strengthening the unions as fighting organizations. (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6926/692620.html)

Business Week, before the split, pointed out that it could get very nasty: (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_30/b3944091.htm)
Jerry McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), widely seen as the power behind Sweeney's throne, and Service Employees International Union (SEIU) President Andy Stern, who heads the dissident faction, shouted and cursed each other. Each accused the other's union of poaching new members in a hard-fought campaign to sign up 50,000 Illinois child-care workers.

One of the functions of a labor federation is to keep unions from raiding each other, and wasting resources fighting each other rather than the bosses...it happens anyway, but one of the real dangers is that raiding activity could increase now.

A lot depends on whether Sweeney and the AFL-CIO leadership now acts to deepen the split; whether they insist on the expulsion of the SEIU and Teamsters from local labor councils for example. Sweeney has been pushing unsuccessfully end cooperation between AFL-CIO construction unions and the Carpenters, who left the AFL-CIO years ago....

Business Week points out some other potentially nasty and union-weakening tactics that could be employed by the feuding bureaucrats. (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_30/b3944094.htm)

Comments? Questions?

[Anarchist Freedom]

Wow this is huge. Its kinda good though It leaves us the ability to come in and get members left in the haze of all this.

[Severian]

Gives who the ability to get union members for what? For some "revolutionary" micro-union?

That's as self-serving an attitude as any other labor bureaucrat's. Putting narrow organizational interests ahead of the interests of the working class as a whole...which are hurt by this split.

[rebelworker]

For a while i have been trying to wrap my head around the best move for revolutionaries in building a fighting movement of labour, I have come to no defenite conclusion to my thoughts abut a few recent experiences have proven the need to seriously examine the possiblity iof building a new more democratic union.

Firstly was the experience of some of my frinds who tried to organize bike curriours in montreal, they began the campaign with much success, hoping to sign with CUPW(posties). Unfortunatly at a crucial stage of the campaign just before the first election at a major company the Teamsters stupped in a signed a sweetheart deal with the company, union oragnizers where brought into the office with management and told that if they didnt sign the teamsters contract they would be fired(the contract included a five year no strike clause). Most signed, thoes who refused were fired and only after six months of goverment intervention were they given jobs back. This hurt the morale of many workers and tied up some of the most active organizers for months.

The aftermath lead to infighting about how much to resist the teamsters at other sites(they hoped to unionize all major comapanies at once to ensure a united workforce). The campaign was stalled to a desasterous extent and the only vote after this incident was a narrow defeat.

Also I have recently had a horrible experience as an organizer with SEIU National in Toronto, it is clear to me that labour has as much to fight in our own beurocracy as in the bosses we hope to defeat. Their general strtegy is one of quick campaings, no real folowup or building up of locals and whenever possible sign deals with management instead of organizing workers directly.
This policy has lead to a 50% desertification rate in all newly organized SEIU locals within a year, it is just a matter of time before this strategy leaves millions of workers more dissatisfied with unions than before. I aslo saw very little effort to educate and empower members, some campaign were handled in a very flippant way with no time or commitmnet to realy developing rank and file militants.

This on top of the AFL-CIO's historic role as aidning US foreign policy in the third world should leave serrious questions about the need for a new union structure in North America. With recent major victories in trucking on the west coast and new moddest attempts to organize starbucks on the east coast, the IWW is again proving to be a serrious possibility for a fighting union in the not too distant future.

The fact is the task of oragnizing Labour in the US is masssive, so much so that the monumentak task of building a "new": union may make sense. This could help to compliment work going on in existing unions, forcing them to the left were possible, and exposing their burocracies as anti worker were nesseary.

Just a few toughts to mull over,
rebelworker

[Anarchist Freedom]

For them to be exposed to other better unions. These unions suck they are beurecratic and idle. They are nowhere near as militant as they where. There to reformist. Im just saying it will give workers a chance to join other worker unions such as the IWW.

[Poum_1936]

Gives who the ability to get union members for what? For some "revolutionary" micro-union?

That's as self-serving an attitude as any other labor bureaucrat's. Putting narrow organizational interests ahead of the interests of the working class as a whole...which are hurt by this split.

Well the teamsters, SEIU, UFCW, and two other unions thinking about leaving comprise alittle more than 40% of the AFL-CIO. Not a small minority.

Also, coming from my union (UFCW) meeting the other night, the UFCW has yet to officially leave but they are also still not particpating. But the UFCW plans to restructure the union too. Making it more based upon the rank and file. Have more imput and more say from below. Getting the rank and file more active.

Plus, Sweeny has created four new seats on the board for non-AFL-CIO unions. This could be seats for the Teamsters, UFCW, SEIU, and UNITE HERE.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:41 PM
Gives who the ability to get union members for what? For some "revolutionary" micro-union?
One can argue in reply that the AFL-CIO is not much more than a reactionary micro-union. Private-sector union membership is down to less than 8 percent of the workforce -- the lowest percentage of unionization since 1901 (when all that existed were AFL craft unions)!

It is increasingly clear that the AFL-CIO has become irrelevant to the lives and livelihood of working people in the U.S. Indeed, most of the Teamsters I have talked to over the last week don't see what difference it makes whether they are affiliated or not. For that matter, these brothers and sisters don't see much of a point to the Teamsters beyond their immediate situation. Why? Because they see it as little more than a dues-collection agency that does nothing for their benefit.

I do think that the implosion of the AFL-CIO opens the door for dissident unions like UE, and radical unions like the IWW, to fill the vacuum created by the split. Where I work, some of my fellow union members are talking about joining the IWW and working to make it the chief collective representative here.

Miles

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Putting narrow organizational interests ahead of the interests of the working class as a whole...which are hurt by this split.

I can see little damage to working class interests by a split between rival bureaucracies...neither of which appears to offer any substantial alternative to "Official Labor's" perspective since 1950.

And there might be a beneficial effect. "Micro-unions" (be they "revolutionary" or not) may succeed in organizing many workplaces that the "elephants" can't or won't.

Indeed, it's rather interesting to consider the possibility of a new labor federation composed of thousands of "micro-unions"...fiercely independent, controlled directly by their members, and adamantly unwilling to kiss the ass of the Democratic Party.

We might see the re-birth of a real labor movement. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 01:59 AM
Also, coming from my union (UFCW) meeting the other night, the UFCW has yet to officially leave but they are also still not particpating. But the UFCW plans to restructure the union too. Making it more based upon the rank and file. Have more imput and more say from below. Getting the rank and file more active.
Yeah, I'll believe that when I see it.

The UFCW bureaucracy is, if anything, one of the most rotten of all. It's gone farther than most in promoting these huge amalgamated locals which are death to union democracy.

Any change is going to come from the ranks, not the bureaucracy....if the bureaucracy does something progressive, it's under massive pressure from the ranks, which isn't going on right now.

The CIO split was preceded by massive, militant labor battles...Toledo, Minneapolis, San Francisco, the textile strikes in '34, etc...millions of workers applied the pressure which John L. Lewis responded to.

But much of the left responded with enthusiasm to Sweeney and other supposedly progressive bureaucrats a few years ago...and upon become disillusioned with that faction, has been waiting for some other bunch of "insurgent" bureaucrats ever since.

A perspective based on the ranks of the unions is pretty improbable right now.

Oh, by "revolutionary" micro-union, I was referring to the insignificant IWW and whatnot of course, not the splitoff.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:53 PM
FFirstly was the experience of some of my frinds who tried to organize bike curriours in montreal, they began the campaign with much success, hoping to sign with CUPW(posties). Unfortunatly at a crucial stage of the campaign just before the first election at a major company the Teamsters stupped in a signed a sweetheart deal with the company, union oragnizers where brought into the office with management and told that if they didnt sign the teamsters contract they would be fired(the contract included a five year no strike clause). Most signed, thoes who refused were fired and only after six months of goverment intervention were they given jobs back. This hurt the morale of many workers and tied up some of the most active organizers for months.
I've heard of the Teamster bureaucracy pulling the same thing on a larger scale against the United Farmworkers...IMO this is another thing that could potentially step up with the split.

The two sides competing for who can sign the lowest sweetheart contract with the bosses. Along with other forms of raiding.


Also I have recently had a horrible experience as an organizer with SEIU National in Toronto, it is clear to me that labour has as much to fight in our own beurocracy as in the bosses we hope to defeat. Their general strtegy is one of quick campaings, no real folowup or building up of locals and whenever possible sign deals with management instead of organizing workers directly.
This policy has lead to a 50% desertification rate in all newly organized SEIU locals within a year, it is just a matter of time before this strategy leaves millions of workers more dissatisfied with unions than before. I aslo saw very little effort to educate and empower members, some campaign were handled in a very flippant way with no time or commitmnet to realy developing rank and file militants.

That's very interesting, since the SEIU bureaucrats are in the forefront of the split...and their success in expanding membership is hailed as justification for their organizing approach.

"labour has as much to fight in our own beurocracy as in the bosses we hope to defeat. "

Well, yeah. Clearly. But from my experience as well as that of others I know, the same frontal attack isn't appropriate against the bureaucracy as against the bosses.

"I have recently had a horrible experience as an organizer with SEIU National in Toronto"

I feel for you, but can't say I'm surprised. For good reason, the policy of the SWP is not so accept any official or staff position with only a few exceptions where its linked to some mass action....even when coworkers encourage you to run for something, it's usually in the hopes you'll become a better bureaucrat who can do stuff for them, it's an attempt to find a substitute for mass action of the ranks, taking more control of the union not just trying to find a better official to do that for them....


With recent major victories in trucking on the west coast and new moddest attempts to organize starbucks on the east coast, the IWW is again proving to be a serrious possibility for a fighting union in the not too distant future.

I seriously doubt that. C'mon, how many workers are involved for you to call something a "major victory"? Betcha it's a case of lowered expectations.


The fact is the task of oragnizing Labour in the US is masssive, so much so that the monumentak task of building a "new": union may make sense. This could help to compliment work going on in existing unions, forcing them to the left were possible, and exposing their burocracies as anti worker were nesseary.

You're not the first to think so...history repeats itself.

Probably new unions will arise, or break off, at some point....all experience is, this is most likely to occur from work within existing unions.

And BTW the leaders of "revolutionary", anarchist or syndicalist unions are not necessarily immune from becoming bureaucrats...as European history shows.