AFL-CIO split
Jul 25 2005 09:21
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4713625.stm
Looks like some of the more militant unions US are about the split from the AFL-CIO, which may well be a step forward given their appauling record (hugely to the right of the TUC).
Anyone have any more details on this, or if it's linked to a union fightback? Are they going to form a new union federation?
Jul 25 2005 10:17
#2
This is an intereting development. It's no surprise to me that the SEIU particularly are part of the split. They've been actively involved in alternative ways of organising since the early 1990s, particularly the Justice for Janitors campaign in 92.
'Organizing Immigrants. The Challenge for Unions in Contemporary California', edited by Ruth Milkman, (2000), Cornell University Press is an interesting read, and sheds light on the historical background leading upto this split. There's also some real constructive ideas in this book on different ways of organising, not just in connection with immigrant workers, but also as regards casual workers.
Jul 25 2005 10:17
#3
Breecher uses it in Strike!, and he's no Trot!
Jul 25 2005 10:20
#4
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
Hmm, the stories on Labour Start http://www.labourstart.org/ seem to indicate a service/retail versus industrial split. The steelworkers are still in AFL/CIO, and I've heard no mention of the Longshore workers' union being part of CHange To Win. This could easily be just about ego politics...BTW -- only in trot-speak is 'fightback' a single word noun
Umm, maybe, but I suspect more about a clear stand that organizing tactics need to change, as the nature of work has/is changing.
Jul 25 2005 10:44
#5
and even if it is, anything that shakes up the AFL-CIO has gotta be a good thing.
They can't really get much worse than they are right now...
Jul 25 2005 12:25
#6
Hi
I'm with you Jack. I think the circumstances surrounding the split are marginally encouraging. It’s advancing the discussion in a generally positive way.
Love
Chris
Jul 25 2005 12:38
#7
some background for this is on the us IWW web site
(sorry for the c+p)
The Top 10 Problems with the Current "Crisis" in the Labor Movement
Submitted by intexile on Thu, 07/21/2005 - 7:17pm.
Reposted from www.counterpunch.com/demoro07212005.html
As Union Chiefs Head Towards a Showdown Next Week in Chicago, the Leader of One of the Country's Most Vital and Combative Unions Identifies....
The Top 10 Problems with the Current "Crisis" in the Labor Movement
By ROSE ANN DeMOROCalifornia Nurses Association
1. There are no real ideological disputes, in part because the current AFL-CIO leadership and programs were, mostly, put in place by those now challenging them. It appears to be more about egos and an effort by specific unions to anoint themselves as the group who should control the AFL-CIO.
2. No workers or rank and file union members are involved, and it is their labor movement. Much of the discussion is based on recommendations of consultants and Madison Avenue approaches such as branding, polling and focus groups, and controlled blogs, rather than engaging the membership and the public on helping shape the future of the labor movement.
3. No issues affecting the majority of working Americans are being debated declining real wages, the health care crisis, the continued erosion of democracy in the workplace, outsourcing of jobs across the skill and pay spectrum, a deteriorating social safety net, declining support for public education, environmental degradation, social justice and ongoing racial and gender inequality, alienation and disaffection from the political process.
4. No real solutions to these problems are being proposed curbing corporate control of the political and economic system, single payer-universal health care, a progressive tax system that restores fair share taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals, taking corporate money out of politics, a new industrial trade policy, a peace, not war economy as well as a strategy for reforming repressive/crippling labor laws and enforcement bodies.
5. The specific proposals by the Change to Win group are structural and bureaucratic, not programmatic rebating union dues, forcing unions to merge, limiting the executive council to the largest unions, and claiming sovereignty for unions by industry or sector based on a union's density in that area. There is no evidence any of these changes would solve labor's problems.
6. The notion that the salvation of the labor movement reduces to "density as manifest destiny" is historically false, and analytically shallow. Equally, for the unions that are proposing the monopolistic changes, seemingly self serving. Some unions that have achieved density have been decimated by corporate sponsored political, economic, and social policies. Besides, forced mergers are anti-democratic and could silence the voice of the most active and militant unions and union leaders.
7. If the issue of organizing was simply dues rebates we could all rest easy. But that notion is painfully oversimplified. Some unions in and out of the Change to Win unions are organizing within the current structure, others have not organized for years. Even if the AFL-CIO paid per capita to some of these unions they still would not or could not organize. And forcing mergers is not synonymous with organizing and in fact could silence the voice of the most active and militant unions and union leaders who are fundamental in building this labor movement.
8. Perhaps because the corporate right is so extreme, some "progressive"analysts have been portraying the dues rebates and proposed forced mergers as core issues. But more troublesome are those pundits who write glowingly about the Change to Win group's greater expansion of labor-management partnerships with their corporate-friendly cost savings schemes, worker speed up programs, explicit endorsement of globalization, deskilling, outsourcing and privatization as Labor's salvation. These proposals can only serve to further alienate the American worker from the labor movement, further erode labor's power and harm the very society wide communities with which labor needs to align and nurture.
9. Limiting the executive council to the biggest unions would further reduce the influence and voice of women and people of color in labor leadership.
10. No discussion of non-bureaucratic strategies are on the table including expanded coalitions with non-labor community, religious and environmental groups; active grassroots education and mobilization campaigns to challenge the corporate/far right agenda; building genuine political independence and holding the democratic party accountable to worker and public interests, and serious consideration of imagine, a labor party for a labor movement.
Rose Ann DeMoro is Executive director of the California Nurses Association
Jul 25 2005 13:26
#8
"There are no real ideological disputes, in part because the current AFL-CIO leadership and programs were, mostly, put in place by those now challenging them. It appears to be more about egos and an effort by specific unions to anoint themselves as the group who should control the AFL-CIO."
Woodbine scores again! 
Jul 25 2005 13:41
#9
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
"There are no real ideological disputes, in part because the current AFL-CIO leadership and programs were, mostly, put in place by those now challenging them. It appears to be more about egos and an effort by specific unions to anoint themselves as the group who should control the AFL-CIO."Woodbine scores again!
Jack thought:
Quote:
Start the fightback! Campaign for a fighting, democratic union! Vote Broad Left!
Jul 25 2005 13:53
#10
Yea, that's really surprising, because I'd expected the IWW to supportive of changes within reformist unions.
Jul 25 2005 14:07
#11
Numbnuts -- the author of the piece was 'Rose Ann DeMoro is Executive director of the California Nurses Association' not some IWW hack. Can't you criticise it based on its arguments rather than dismissing it because of the group that's published it?
Class Struggle Primitivism gets the goods 8)
Jul 25 2005 14:23
#12
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
Can't you criticise it based on its arguments rather than dismissing it because of the group that's published it?
No, I'm afraid my participation in the US trade union movement at present is sadly lacking.
It's some of the unions who have been making the best noises recently.
They're splitting from a shit reactionary Confederation.
Isn't fucking revolutionary, but it's still better than nowt.
Jul 25 2005 14:44
#13
Jack wrote:
Isn't fucking revolutionary, but it's still better than nowt.
Is it? how do you know that? Some people -- who may be on the right -- have said that this could weaken the existing unions. Maybe the service unions that are doing OK simply don't want to be tied to the decaying industrial workforces?
It could be worse than nothing, or it could be a good move. There's info in the public domain that helps us to make a reasonable analysis. Come on, don't make the primmies do all the labour analysis. 8)
Jul 25 2005 14:46
#14
darren redparty wrote:
2. No workers or rank and file union members are involved, and it is their labor movement.
No Jack, but it might very well be counter-revolutionary, and for the above reason.
It seems to me that what's happening in the AFL-CIO is an old-style palace coup (you young uns might find it easier to think of as 'regime change' 
), where one set of trade union leaders replaces another, with shit-all reference to the membership.
Is the split the outcome of class struggle? I don't think so.
Does it advance the interests of the working class? Too early to say. But it certainly doesn't advance the interests of the working class in & of itself.
Jul 25 2005 15:07
#15
The leadership isn't the most important factor, but its ridiculous to pretend that a change of leadership, whatever the involvement of workers, can't make any difference at all. I mean it's not as if them NOT splitting would mean they'd have had grassroots involvement, is it?
It's a break to the left, and as I see it, an encouraging move.
However, not gonna be able to do any in-depth analysis on it, far too busy with more important tasks, such as adding IWMA agendas (http://libcom.org/library/prog-5th-conf-iwma) and notices of pamphlets soon to be published by Engels (http://libcom.org/library/prussia-notice-iwma) to the library. 8)
Jul 25 2005 15:29
#16
Jack wrote:
It's a break to the left, and as I see it, an encouraging move.
As you've said a couple of times, you don't really know what's happening here -- so how can you tell whether it's a break to the left or the right?
Jul 25 2005 15:39
#17
C'mon Laz, can't you see that Jack's excited? -- we all know that the revolutionary party is built by "splits & fusions"
Jul 25 2005 15:42
#18
The AFL-CIO has long held back the wc movement in the US. In a way totally different than TUC unions in the UK. It's splitting. Thus, the ability of the AFL-CIO to hold back struggle, is lessening.
I don't really see it as being fucking rocket science that this is a step forward.
Jul 25 2005 15:53
#19
Jack wrote:
The AFL-CIO has long held back the wc movement in the US. In a way totally different than TUC unions in the UK.
Really? I thought the US movement spanned a similar left-right continuum as the UK one. If breaking the power of the main federation is always a good thing, why do you think that the nurses association spokesperson wasn't too hot on it? And have you considered that this kind of leadership struggle could bring forward new blood into the union's managerial role and actually strengthen the hold of the pro-capitalist unions?
Jul 25 2005 15:58
#20
Jack wrote:
The AFL-CIO has long held back the wc movement in the US. In a way totally different than TUC unions in the UK. It's splitting. Thus, the ability of the AFL-CIO to hold back struggle, is lessening.I don't really see it as being fucking rocket science that this is a step forward.
Yes, Jack. It's like, the Labour Party in Britain held back the working class movement here, too. So when the SDP split off, that was lovely, because a weakened Labour Party was less capable of holding back working class struggle. (Ironic )
Jul 25 2005 16:09
#21
the button wrote:
Yes, Jack. It's like, the Labour Party in Britain held back the working class movement here, too. So when the SDP split off, that was lovely, because a weakened Labour Party was less capable of holding back working class struggle. (Ironic
The AFL-CIO and early 80's LP are incomparable.
Jul 25 2005 16:12
#22
Jack wrote:
the button wrote:
Yes, Jack. It's like, the Labour Party in Britain held back the working class movement here, too. So when the SDP split off, that was lovely, because a weakened Labour Party was less capable of holding back working class struggle. (IronicThe AFL-CIO and early 80's LP are incomparable.
So you don't agree that the Labour Party has held back the working class movement in the UK?! 
Hah! Sussed! You'll be a Labour councillor before the decade's out, young man.
Edited: I'm too nice to sustain this internet wind-up lark 
. Jack mate, I haven't got a clue one way or the other on this. 
Jul 25 2005 16:19
#23
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
Really? I thought the US movement spanned a similar left-right continuum as the UK one.
Well, based on Brecher, I'd say that the AFL-CIO are hugely to the right of the TUC. In fact
Quote:
If breaking the power of the main federation is always a good thing,
Given that I clearly didn't say that, why would you pretend I did, when the post is right above this? 
Quote:
why do you think that the nurses association spokesperson wasn't too hot on it?
I wasn't aware that being a spokesperson for a union automatically made you a) correct and b) a revolutionary?
So would it be better if the unions remain in the AFL-CIO? Because the choice here isn't between grassroots democratic revolutionary syndicalist unions or this split - it's between either the unions remaining within the AFL-CIO with unchanged policy, leading almost certainly to a further decline in union membership, or some of these unions breaking away and something new happening.
I think that given the terminal slump in the AFL-CIO, it may well be irrepairably fucked as an insturment of class struggle, and that something new would be welcome. yea, obviously I'd prefer it was a grassroots initative, but given the options presented at the moment, I think this has some promise.
Jul 25 2005 16:21
#24
the button wrote:
So you don't agree that the Labour Party has held back the working class movement in the UK?!
Nah, actually the difference I meant was that unlike the LP, reformist unions could be an instrument of class struggle.
Surely a more apt analogy would be if there was a split to the left from New Labour?
I bet you don't even support the T&G/AMICUS/maybe NUM/maybe GMB merger either, do you!
Jul 25 2005 16:23
#25
Jack wrote:
I bet you don't even support the T&G/AMICUS/maybe NUM/maybe GMB merger either, do you!
Dunno.
I'm rubbish, me - I don't have opinions on fuck all, really.
Jul 25 2005 16:26
#26
I like to be taken in by their semi-syndicalist rhetoric because it makes me feel better about the world.
Jul 25 2005 16:53
#27
Jack wrote:
Surely a more apt analogy would be if there was a split to the left from New Labour?
You've still not put up any info about why this is a split to the left -- apart from saying that the current establishment is crap.
"It's splitting. Thus, the ability of the AFL-CIO to hold back struggle, is lessening."
This seems to say -- a split movement and a weaker AFL/CIO is *neccessarily* a good thing, no matter the politics of the split. Am I wrong?
Jul 25 2005 17:04
#28
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
You've still not put up any info about why this is a split to the left -- apart from saying that the current establishment is crap.
Well, it's the more militant unions, who've been (previously, perhaps not in terms of this split based on what has been said) criticising the AFL-CIO's lack of organisational focus. Probably not because they're great pro-w/c unions, but that they recognise that without doing this, they'll disapeer. I've heard a lot from SEIU and the Teamsters recently criticising the AFL-CIO on this basis.
Quote:
This seems to say -- a split movement and a weaker AFL/CIO is *neccessarily* a good thing, no matter the politics of the split. Am I wrong?
Of the AFL-CIO, probably (well, not whatever the politics, obviously if there was a split to form some Spencerite unions or whatever it'd be shite, but generally, yes). I think as a confederation, it's so fucked and reactionary, that a dissolution of it is preferable.
Jul 25 2005 17:14
#29
Jack wrote:
Well, it's the more militant unions, who've been (previously, perhaps not in terms of this split based on what has been said) criticising the AFL-CIO's lack of organisational focus.
It's not all the more millitant unions, though, is it? Where are the steel workers and the longshore workers? Maybe it's a services/industrial split rather than a left/right split?
Jack wrote:
I think as a confederation, it's so fucked and reactionary, that a dissolution of it is preferable.
So why was I wrong to say that, for you, breaking the power of the federation was the main thing?
Jul 25 2005 17:24
#30
I've totally lost your logic here?
Saying "a dissolution of (the AFL-CIO) is preferable" is surely not synonymous with "breaking the power of the main federation is always a good thing"?
Anyway, I have to go work now.
For a Trade Union, coincidentally. 8)
Hmm, the stories on Labour Start http://www.labourstart.org/ seem to indicate a service/retail versus industrial split. The steelworkers are still in AFL/CIO, and I've heard no mention of the Longshore workers' union being part of CHange To Win. This could easily be just about ego politics...
BTW -- only in trot-speak is 'fightback' a single word noun