Public Employee Press

First in a series

Labor's future: Debate rages

By GREGORY N. HEIRES

When John J. Sweeney led an insurgency that took over the AFL-CIO in 1995, his top priorities were to reverse the long-term decline in union membership and to turn the U.S. labor movement into a political juggernaut.

But with the percentage of workers in unions continuing to plummet and George W. Bush winning re-election despite a $100 million effort by labor to topple the conservative president, Sweeney now finds his own record under fire.

Nearly 10 years after the Sweeney-led takeover, a fierce debate has ignited about the need for dramatic change in the labor movement.

Political power
At Sweeney’s request, the AFL-CIO Executive Council will consider a number of blueprints for reform at its executive council meeting in March. Discussions about proposals for change are expected to continue until the 60 unions in the federation meet in July for the AFL-CIO’s convention, when Sweeney may face a challenge to his bid for a fourth term.

On Jan. 7, DC 37’s parent union, the 1.4 million-member American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, released its first discussion paper (which is available at www.afscme.org). “Labor’s Main Challenge: Increasing Political Power for Working Families,” charts AFSCME’s position in the debate over the future of the labor movement.

“Winning or losing in politics is what will make the difference in whether our members and all working families have health insurance, good jobs and a secure retirement,” said AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee.

“Just as important, winning in politics has everything to do with whether the labor movement grows, and that must be our greatest priority,” said Mr. McEntee. A key player in the Sweeney “New Voice” insurgency a decade ago, he has strengthened labor’s political arm, which he heads, by significantly increasing members’ involvement in politics.

The AFSCME plan calls for further strengthening the AFL-CIO’s political operations by

• developing a permanent, nationwide army of political volunteers,
• mobilizing more members to get involved in politics, not only at work but at home, to reach out to swing voters, and
• increasing substantially the portion of AFL-CIO dues dedicated to political work.

Though festering for many months, the debate over the future of the labor movement bubbled to the surface immediately after the Nov. 2 presidential election. That month, the 1.7-million-member Service Employees International Union issued a 10 point plan, “Unite to Win: A 21st Century Plan to Build New Strength for Working People,” calling for sweeping changes.

SEIU issued its report as part of a group called the New Unity Partnership. NUP dissolved in January because, according to its leaders, the group had succeeded in stimulating the debate over major change at the AFL-CIO and its continued existence would only contribute to divisiveness. NUP included the Teamsters, Carpenters, Laborers and Unite Here, whose president for the hospitality industry, John Wilhelm, has been considered a possible challenger to Sweeney in July.

The most controversial proposal of the SEIU plan calls for restructuring the AFL-CIO by consolidating the federation’s 60 unions into about 20 “mega-unions” that group together workers in common sectors of the economy. Stern argues that consolidation would increase the collective bargaining power of unions and make organizing easier.

But the plan threatens the power of the leaders of the smaller unions of 100,000 and less, and critics have described the proposal as heavy-handed and anti-democratic.

Some NUP unions talked of leaving the AFL-CIO unless key aspects of their plan were adopted, rather than continue paying dues to an organization they see as ineffective. This position was seen as arrogant and divisive by many other labor leaders.

Dire straits
When AFSCME released “Labor’s Main Challenge,” McEntee said: “Powerful reactionary forces contemplate a union-free America, and they have achieved temporary advantage in the elections.

Let us not make their task easier by dividing the movement when it needs unity more than ever.”

He added: “Issues such as union mergers, jurisdiction and federation structure ought to be addressed — but on their own merits — and without dramatic claims that the movement’s life or death depends on them.”

The challenges ahead were the subject of “Labor at the Crossroads,” a conference sponsored by the Queens College Labor Resource Center Dec. 2-3 in Manhattan. The discussions brought together about 500 labor leaders, intellectuals and active members.

The program focused on the political and economic obstacles confronting unions and included sharp exchanges about what the AFL-CIO needs to do to reverse the spiraling decline that LRC Director Greg Mantsios described as “dire straits.”

Mr. Mantsios noted that union representation has fallen from 1 in 3 workers in the 1950s to 1 in 6 in the 1990s and “perilously close” to 1 in 10 today. In the private sector, “union density” has fallen to 8 percent, about one worker in 12.

He said today’s concentration of wealth and power has reached levels previously believed to be impossible. Making an observation shared by several panelists, he said the chief economic threat to working families and unions was the Wal-Mart business model. This symbol of what’s wrong with the 21st century economy features globalized out-sourcing, low pay, few benefits and union busting.

During a panel on the competing visions about the future of labor, Bruce Raynor, general president of Unite Here, argued that labor’s strength is “diluted” by inter-union competition for new members. Gerry Hudson, executive vice president of SEIU said, “We believe bigger is better.” He contended that the consolidation of unions according to economic sectors is the answer to labor’s waning economic power.

But Gregory Junemann, president of the 50,000-member International Federation of
Professional and Technical Engineers, defended the current structure. He said forcing mergers on unions like the IFPTE would violate their local autonomy.

Stewards network
Larry Cohen, executive vice president of the Communications Workers of America, which supports Sweeney, said mobilizing a massive nationwide shop stewards’ network would be a vital component of any plan to revitalize the labor movement.

“The most critical thing we can do is put our resources into the inner workings of unions,” Cohen said. Cohen is the author of “American Labor—Working Together,” a proposal that calls for unions to join in massive campaigns around such issues as health care, retirement security and collective bargaining rights. The plan also suggests that the labor movement develop a national strike fund.

The Teamsters union has also issued a proposal for changes. The plan calls for streamlining the AFL-CIO bureaucracy and rebating half of their AFL-CIO dues to unions that dramatically step up organizing.

“The debate within the labor movement is more widespread than ever before,” Mr. Mantsios said at the Queens conference. “What will happen now may affect the movement for the next 50 years.”

PEP invites members to submit their ideas and comments on this debate as letters to the editor.