Five hundred people who care about the future of the labor movement gathered at the City University of New York on Dec. 2-3. But they agreed on little about its prospects, except for two points: The movement needs to stop shrinking and start growing, and that George W. Bush is bad news.
Other than that, speakers and participants of the "Labor at the Crossroads" conference hosted by the Queens College Labor Resource Center and the New Labor Forum split on how to achieve the first objective.
Participants disagreed over whether restructuring the labor movement along the lines of the SEIU's "Unite to Win" proposal would help unions grow. And they differed over many other issues, including what emphasis to place on democracy and acti-vism within labor. But there was not much discussion of demo-cracy and activism as tools to make labor grow and gain power.
SEIU's proposal for restructuring was the main focus of a plenary session, while such issues as union democracy were discussed in small rooms at times when conference participants split up into several simultaneous panels.
Ideas from the New Unity Partnership (NUP)--a group of five union presidents, including SEIU's Andy Stern and UNITE HERE's Bruce Raynor--framed the conference debate so that many topics were treated as afterthoughts to the main project of growth, which was understood as restructuring.
These included: Democracy and activism, labor media as a shaper of public discourse, labor media as a builder of union democracy and activism, political strategy, coalition building, and international organizing.
Democracy was treated as an objection to a top-down model of restructuring, and therefore as an impediment to growth, or something with which growth must reach a compromise. Rarely were democracy and activism presented as ways to achieve growth.
Politics was also separate. While the first morning plenary was "What Will it Take to Bring About Labor's Revival? Competing Visions," the second plenary--"Labor and the 2004 Elections: What Happened and What Next?"--focused on labor's work for John Kerry, not on whether a more aggressive political agenda and endorsement process could help build a bigger movement.
Raynor opened the first plenary by describing how grim things are now for American workers and suggesting labor needs "the kind of change that leaders of the CIO brought." He noted the idea that manufacturing jobs were high-paying jobs "was not handed down from Mt. Sinai...It was handed down by the CIO."
Raynor then warned that huge abuses of workers, such as the government's "wiping out pensions," could go on now without "any comment in American society." He recounted UNITE HERE's success with militant strikes and demonstrations. By contrast, he said a Democratic president created NAFTA, which cost 800,000 U.S. jobs.
But after these observations, Raynor drew a seemingly unrelated conclusion: Labor needs fewer unions, with unions focused on industries and jurisdictions. Stern makes that same point on his 10-part AFL-CIO reorganization plan on Unite To Win.
Raynor had four proposals: Because we lost the presidential election, labor must spend more money next time; Labor should not let one union sign a contract undermining another union's campaign against a company; Every dollar from Union Privilege credit cards should go to a Wal-Mart campaign; and unions should pay less to the AFL-CIO and invest more in their own organizing.
Professional and Technical Engineers President Gregory Junemann followed, stressing he spoke for a smaller union of 56,000 members. Unlike Raynor and Stern, he offered no bullet-point plan for success, but presented a different growth model.
Junemann said all IFPTE leaders come from the rank and file, that its staff-to-member ratio is "incredibly low," that dues are very low, that members run locals and the locals run the international. Using this model, the IFPTE has doubled in size over the past 10 years and has grown under Bush, he noted.
Junemann proposed the AFL-CIO send temporary teams around the country to help with campaigns. "We need to disassemble the whale and put together a school of piranhas," he said.
He also proposed greater study of what future jobs will be and more training of members for future needs. Junemann called for representing the 25 percent of the work force that is "non-traditional," such as contract workers and freelancers. And he suggested U.S. labor work more closely with unions worldwide.
Junemann did not propose other unions follow IFPTE's strategy for success through membership control. But he did oppose the SEIU model. "Forced mergers are not strategic," he said. "Our members want to remain a low-cost, self-directed union with the members in charge. They will not merge with a union that doesn't have that model."
Explaining SEIU's plan, Executive Vice President Gerald Hudson argued that "size matters," that larger unions are stronger, that "diversity matters," that the movement is "too male, too pale, and too stale," and that "unity matters."
He said, as the plan advocates, that the number of unions should be drastically reduced through mergers. Of 61 AFL-CIO unions, he said, 40 are smaller than the SEIU's Local 1199, the formerly independent New York Hospital and Health Care Workers.
Hudson proposed the AFL-CIO collect half what it does now from "lead unions," and that unions invest at least 20 percent of their international budget and 10 percent at the local level in organizing. The federation, he said, should help create unions in industries and regions that need them. And labor should build global alliances based on industry or company.
SEIU's proposal was focus of many audience questions, and of a follow-up roundtable of responses--but not before CWA Vice President Larry Cohen presented his own 10-point plan. Both Cohen's and SEIU's plans are on SEIU's "Unite to Win" website.
Cohen's plan differs significantly from SEIU's. It relegates mergers to point #9, which reads in its entirety: "In the past 10 years, about 50 national unions have merged. This trend will undoubtedly continue. The issue is how mergers can change union workplaces, lead to more active shop stewards and greater member involvement, and create more effective organizing, collective bargaining and political action."
Cohen's first two points focused on collective bargaining. Two others propose strengthening the role of shop stewards and letting the stewards democratically elect central labor council leaders. Another Cohen point proposes the AFL-CIO provide strike benefits of at least $200 weekly per striking worker.
Cohen also proposed a democratic process for political endorsements, and discouraging locals from supporting a candidate not supported by the majority of unions. He addressed interna-tional alliances, social action--emphasizing national health care and pensions--and "narrowing and sharpening" the AFL-CIO's focus.
"If anyone in this room thinks that we're going to change collective bargaining rights based on how we structure rather than how we mobilize, they're mistaken," Cohen said.
David Swanson is media coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association.
For more information
A longer Swanson report about the conference can be found at www.ilcaonline.org
Share
Five hundred people who care about the future of the labor movement gathered at the City University of New York on Dec. 2-3. But they agreed on little about its prospects, except for two points: The movement needs to stop shrinking and start growing, and that George W. Bush is bad news.
Other than that, speakers and participants of the “Labor at the Crossroads” conference hosted by the Queens College Labor Resource Center and the New Labor Forum split on how to achieve the first objective.
Participants disagreed over whether restructuring the labor movement along the lines of the SEIU’s “Unite to Win” proposal would help unions grow. And they differed over many other issues, including what emphasis to place on democracy and acti-vism within labor. But there was not much discussion of demo-cracy and activism as tools to make labor grow and gain power.
SEIU’s proposal for restructuring was the main focus of a plenary session, while such issues as union democracy were discussed in small rooms at times when conference participants split up into several simultaneous panels.
Ideas from the New Unity Partnership (NUP)–a group of five union presidents, including SEIU’s Andy Stern and UNITE HERE’s Bruce Raynor–framed the conference debate so that many topics were treated as afterthoughts to the main project of growth, which was understood as restructuring.
These included: Democracy and activism, labor media as a shaper of public discourse, labor media as a builder of union democracy and activism, political strategy, coalition building, and international organizing.
Democracy was treated as an objection to a top-down model of restructuring, and therefore as an impediment to growth, or something with which growth must reach a compromise. Rarely were democracy and activism presented as ways to achieve growth.
Politics was also separate. While the first morning plenary was “What Will it Take to Bring About Labor’s Revival? Competing Visions,” the second plenary–“Labor and the 2004 Elections: What Happened and What Next?”–focused on labor’s work for John Kerry, not on whether a more aggressive political agenda and endorsement process could help build a bigger movement.
Raynor opened the first plenary by describing how grim things are now for American workers and suggesting labor needs “the kind of change that leaders of the CIO brought.” He noted the idea that manufacturing jobs were high-paying jobs “was not handed down from Mt. Sinai…It was handed down by the CIO.”
Raynor then warned that huge abuses of workers, such as the government’s “wiping out pensions,” could go on now without “any comment in American society.” He recounted UNITE HERE’s success with militant strikes and demonstrations. By contrast, he said a Democratic president created NAFTA, which cost 800,000 U.S. jobs.
But after these observations, Raynor drew a seemingly unrelated conclusion: Labor needs fewer unions, with unions focused on industries and jurisdictions. Stern makes that same point on his 10-part AFL-CIO reorganization plan on Unite To Win.
Raynor had four proposals: Because we lost the presidential election, labor must spend more money next time; Labor should not let one union sign a contract undermining another union’s campaign against a company; Every dollar from Union Privilege credit cards should go to a Wal-Mart campaign; and unions should pay less to the AFL-CIO and invest more in their own organizing.
Professional and Technical Engineers President Gregory Junemann followed, stressing he spoke for a smaller union of 56,000 members. Unlike Raynor and Stern, he offered no bullet-point plan for success, but presented a different growth model.
Junemann said all IFPTE leaders come from the rank and file, that its staff-to-member ratio is “incredibly low,” that dues are very low, that members run locals and the locals run the international. Using this model, the IFPTE has doubled in size over the past 10 years and has grown under Bush, he noted.
Junemann proposed the AFL-CIO send temporary teams around the country to help with campaigns. “We need to disassemble the whale and put together a school of piranhas,” he said.
He also proposed greater study of what future jobs will be and more training of members for future needs. Junemann called for representing the 25 percent of the work force that is “non-traditional,” such as contract workers and freelancers. And he suggested U.S. labor work more closely with unions worldwide.
Junemann did not propose other unions follow IFPTE’s strategy for success through membership control. But he did oppose the SEIU model. “Forced mergers are not strategic,” he said. “Our members want to remain a low-cost, self-directed union with the members in charge. They will not merge with a union that doesn’t have that model.”
Explaining SEIU’s plan, Executive Vice President Gerald Hudson argued that “size matters,” that larger unions are stronger, that “diversity matters,” that the movement is “too male, too pale, and too stale,” and that “unity matters.”
He said, as the plan advocates, that the number of unions should be drastically reduced through mergers. Of 61 AFL-CIO unions, he said, 40 are smaller than the SEIU’s Local 1199, the formerly independent New York Hospital and Health Care Workers.
Hudson proposed the AFL-CIO collect half what it does now from “lead unions,” and that unions invest at least 20 percent of their international budget and 10 percent at the local level in organizing. The federation, he said, should help create unions in industries and regions that need them. And labor should build global alliances based on industry or company.
SEIU’s proposal was focus of many audience questions, and of a follow-up roundtable of responses–but not before CWA Vice President Larry Cohen presented his own 10-point plan. Both Cohen’s and SEIU’s plans are on SEIU’s “Unite to Win” website.
Cohen’s plan differs significantly from SEIU’s. It relegates mergers to point #9, which reads in its entirety: “In the past 10 years, about 50 national unions have merged. This trend will undoubtedly continue. The issue is how mergers can change union workplaces, lead to more active shop stewards and greater member involvement, and create more effective organizing, collective bargaining and political action.”
Cohen’s first two points focused on collective bargaining. Two others propose strengthening the role of shop stewards and letting the stewards democratically elect central labor council leaders. Another Cohen point proposes the AFL-CIO provide strike benefits of at least $200 weekly per striking worker.
Cohen also proposed a democratic process for political endorsements, and discouraging locals from supporting a candidate not supported by the majority of unions. He addressed interna-tional alliances, social action–emphasizing national health care and pensions–and “narrowing and sharpening” the AFL-CIO’s focus.
“If anyone in this room thinks that we’re going to change collective bargaining rights based on how we structure rather than how we mobilize, they’re mistaken,” Cohen said.
David Swanson is media coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association.
For more information
A longer Swanson report about the conference can be found at www.ilcaonline.org