My Take

and another back view

WHY DO I SQUEEZE 
ALL THESE DUNG  BALLS
LIKE THEY'RE FRUIT?


WHO     KNOWS

BUT FUCK.......
============================

  
February 24, 2005


EXCERPTS FROM:


Labor Debates Its Future

by David Moberg 

  
 
" Andy Stern is not shy 
about speaking his mind

 For several years 
the energetic
 54-year-old president
 of the 1.8 million-strong 
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

 the nation's second-largest 
and fastest-growing union

 has argued in a bold
   and often provocative way 

that the labor movement
 must organize new members 
faster or die

 And he claims that unions 
can do so
 despite a hostile political climate
 but only if they revamp 
their structure and strategy
 consolidating forces
 to create bigger
 more muscular unions 
in each sector of the economy....." 



 "STERN HAS  triggered 
a fiery internal debate
 that may reach some resolution 
at either the labor federation's
 March executive council meeting 
or this summer's quadrennial convention"

 "There's also 
the possibility 
that the arguments will set the stage
 for a dramatic contest 
for the presidency of the AFL-CIO 
and an organizational split
 on the fiftieth anniversary 
of the merger 
of its two forerunner federations"

" so far
 the discussion 
has been too much about
 the AFL-CIO and union structure
 and not enough about
 how to revitalize labor 
and a broader movement 
for economic democracy 
and social justice"

" This debate
 with no clear "left" or "right" side
 takes place against a grim backdrop..."



 "Does Stern--or anyone--have the answer?"

" Will any changes 
be too little
     too late? "
-------------------------------------------------------


"The AFL-CIO: In Weakness and in Strength "

"Ten years ago John Sweeney
 then president of SEIU 
and Stern's mentor
 challenged the incumbent leadership 
of the AFL-CIO on similar grounds"

" Unions had to work more aggressively
 to organize new members
 and increase their political power"

 " Since then the AFL-CIO
 has souped up its political operation
 greatly increasing unity
 energy
 sophistication and mobilization
 of staff and members" 

" But unions have not recognized 
the equal importance 
of working together 
and mobilizing members 
to organize new workers" 

"To the extent there's a glue
 that holds the AFL-CIO together,
 it's politics " 
says John Wilhelm
 the hospitality industry president 
of the merged UNITE HERE, 
"but there has not been 
a consensus over the proper role
   for the AFL-CIO in organizing."

"Compared with other citizen organizations
 Machinist president Tom Buffenbarger
 correctly argues
 unions are still strong"


" At the same time
 though
 they are becoming 
skinny weaklings 
facing corporate Charles Atlases"

" Most of their woes 
are inflicted from outside:
 corporate attacks
 on the right to organize
 laws that hamstring unions
 a global economy 
without meaningful labor rights
 a shift to a service economy
 with unstable employment relations 
and the ascendant pro-corporate
 political right"

" These forces have also weakened
 labor movements in many other industrial countries
 But in the United States unions
 have had less political support
 and many have become internally sclerotic
 have retreated from organizing 
  or are organized indiscriminately 
and ineffectively"

" The different positions 
in the current debate 
partly reflect
how much emphasis 
each union puts on changing
 the external environment
 (like Buffenbarger) 
or the internal workings
 of labor 
(like Stern) 
  as a key to labor revival" 

----------------------------------

 " Under Sweeney 
the AFL-CIO has tried to tackle both fronts
 It has exhorted unions 
to spend more on organizing 
(aiming for 30 percent 
of national budgets)
 trained more new organizers
 encouraged strategically targeted organizing
 and assisted organizing campaigns 
with money or staff

 Sweeney has also urged small unions 
to merge
there have been thirty-one mergers
 since he took office
and for unions to concentrate
 on increasing the density 
of union representation 
in their key industries

 Increasingly
 the federation has focused 
on a campaign for
 the right to organize
 including legislation 
that would grant recognition
 to unions that sign up a majority 
of employees at any workplace"

" But critics contend 
that Sweeney and his staff 
have run the AFL-CIO 
with tightly scripted meetings 
that discourage the open discussion 
among leaders 
needed to strengthen 
the labor movement 
and resolve the issues 
that are flaring up "

Now roughly twenty-five 
of the fifty-eight AFL-CIO unions
 devote 10-50 percent 
of their budgets to organizing
 up from an estimated average 
of 3 percent in the early 1990s
 Many are slowly changing 
their internal cultures 
to support organizing
 and are learning 
how to use collective bargaining
 political clout
 pension power
 member organizers 
and strategic planning
 to organize on a larger scale
 But despite their claims 
to be recruiting
 around half a million new members
 each year 
(though closer to 350,000
 during the 2004 election year)
 AFL-CIO unions have continued 
to lose ground 
at nearly the same rate 
as under Sweeney's predecessor
 according to Richard Hurd 
of Cornell University
 and the density 
of union representation
 continues to fall 
even in industries 
where unions have done 
their best organizing 
(with the exception 
of hospitals 
and possibly 
industrial laundries).


------------------------------------------------------
Stern's Determination

Stern's ideas about reorganizing 
the labor movement grew 
in part out of SEIU's success 
in organizing more than 730,000 workers
 in nine years
 mainly by building strength systematically
 in a few strategic industries
building services
 hospitals
 long-term-care providers

 He has even allowed 
some SEIU locals outside its core
 (like utility or laundry workers)
 to move to other unions
 But he has been frustrated
 by other unions' attempts 
to undercut SEIU's strategic campaigns
 (For example, as SEIU organized security guards 
in Los Angeles last year
 it had to fend off organizing 
by Teamsters
 Operating Engineer 
and independent union locals 
that offered employers deals
 to avoid SEIU.) 

Stern concluded 
that the labor movement 
should be reorganized 
from a collection 
of a few large general unions 
and many small
 narrow ones 
into about fifteen to twenty 
big unions
 each of which concentrates 
on a distinct economic sector
 like healthcare 
or transportation
 When unions represent 
a large share of workers
 in an industry
 they acquire more power
 to organize and bargain
 Since employers 
are increasingly multinational
 he argued
 unions need to reach across borders 
and become global as well

 

Even before Stern made his formal proposals
 last November
, many labor leaders
 had rejected his ideas 
on reorganization
 from his first offhand remarks 
soon after he took office
 to a long SEIU discussion document
 widely circulated several years ago

 They threatened 
the self-interest and practices 
of many union leaders
 and strategists from both left and right 
criticized them as arrogant
 self-interested
 unworkable
 analytically flawed 
or undemocratic

 But some labor leaders
 shared his views

 In the summer of 2003
 four other unions

--HERE (hotel workers),
 UNITE (historically garment and textile workers),
 the Laborers, 
and the Carpenters 
(which had already left the AFL-CIO)
--formed the New Unity Partnership (NUP)
 to cooperate on organizing. 

Then, last summer, 
Stern told his convention 
that either the AFL-CIO had to change
 or SEIU would form something better
 raising the specter of a split 
in organized labor
 like John L. Lewis's departure
 from the AFL in 1935 
to form the new CIO.

 

Stern's ten-point plan 
included much that was 
at first glance relatively noncontroversial
 
It called for a major national healthcare battle
 but skirted the crucial question
 of whether labor should pursue
 national health insurance 
Or piecemeal reforms. 

 fortyUNIONS  in the AFL-CIO HAVE  fewer than 
100,000 members
 they seztern don't  have the resources to organize

 Even more important
 most of the fifteen unions
 with more than 250,000 members
 were turning into general unions

 Sixteen unions 
in a recent four-year period
 had tried organizing
 in at least five different sectors

 And each sector was represented
 by many different unions

 In thirteen of fifteen major economic sectors 
there are at least four significant unions
 with as many as fifteen 
in transportation

 But in some of the biggest
 fastest-growing sectors 
there was very little organizing

 As a result, Stern sez
 unions are  unfocused and divided
 while they increasingly face
 national or global corporations
 

Stern proposed 
to unite workers "in the same industry
 sector or craft
 under three leading national unions
 with the idea that this would yield 
not just greater numbers 
but enhanced power and leverage
 for unions

 This strategy
 familiar to industrial
 or even craft union organizers
 of decades past
 collides with the shape 
of many unions today
 especially as they have tried
 to survive by merging 
or organizing simply 
to add members

 The plan also triggered 
a backlash 
because it seemed to give 
the AFL-CIO great authority 
to merge unions and transfer responsibilities 
for organizing among unions
 which critics regarded
 as an undemocratic violation
 of the traditional autonomy 
of individual unions

 Equally important
 Stern argued for three other reforms
 rebating to unions half their AFL-CIO dues 
as an incentive to boost spending
 on organizing
 prohibiting unions 
from undercutting established contract standards 
in an industry 
and mandating
 that the AFL-CIO either form 
new unions and innovative organizations 
or help old unions expand 
on labor's unorganized frontier.

Ideas, Ideas Everywhere

The debate picked up 
as the Teamsters
 then several other unions
 offered their own proposals
 and hundreds of union members 
weighed in on SEIU 
and AFL-CIO websites

 The discussion--both in public
 and in AFL-CIO committees-
-has been unusually free-ranging,
 leading Stern, Sweeney and others 
to feel more optimistic
 about reaching an agreement.


 "My hope is that we're going
 to have as dramatic a set 
of recommendations 
as we can possibly put together 
to grow the labor movement
 and to have a strong federation,
 but to be focused on where
 the affiliates want to be focused," Sweeney says.
 "We're not talking about 
cosmetic changes but meaningful changes." 

The proposals, reflecting individual union experience
 and self-interest,
 did not always directly respond
 to Stern's plan. 
Often the participants seem 
to be talking past each other
. And none of the plans, 
including Stern's, 
lay out a comprehensive strategy 
for an organizing revival.
 But at least there is a debate,
 which is healthy. 
The Teamsters, for example,
 emphasized AFL-CIO dues rebates 
for unions that meet standards
 for spending on organizing, 
encouraging more mergers,
 streamlining the AFL-CIO, 
enforcing contract standards 
in industries 
and giving a small committee 
of the ten biggest unions more power
--reinforcing many SEIU proposals 
in a more voluntaristic way

. Without directly addressing
 many structural issues
 AFSCME stressed expanding political operations
 into a full-time offensive,
 not just around elections. 

  

   
The Machinists, in opposition to Stern,
 emphasized using existing union power
 more effectively,
 especially to reach allies 
and the public. 
Taking issue with SEIU in a different way, 
the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) 
argued that unions should concentrate
 on their broad social goals 
as the "people's lobby," 
and rely on coalitions 
of any interested unions,
 not just the strongest few,
 to map strategy for each industry
 or occupation. 

As an alternative to radical restructuring,
 the Communications Workers of America (CWA) 
proposed strengthening unions
 (more union democracy,
 strike benefits and shop stewards) 
and focusing expanded political work 
on collective bargaining 
and organizing rights,
 healthcare and retirement security. 

As part of labor reform,
 nearly everyone wants 
to strengthen the local arms
 of the AFL-CIO, 
which have become innovative and influential
 in many cities, 
like Cleveland,
 Milwaukee 
and San Jose.

 But in a restructuring debate 
that has taken on a life of its own,
 there was tension between proposals 
for more control from the center
 and the plan of some local leaders
 to create seventy-five 
strategic metropolitan federations
 that could be more powerful 
in local politics,
 not just a vehicle
 for national policies. 


It became apparent early 
that there was no support, 
even among his immediate allies, 
for Stern's suggestions 
to give the AFL-CIO power 
to dictate mergers 
or organizing jurisdictions

 Indeed, insiders say other NUP leaders 
were furious when Stern 
launched his proposals independently

 By early January 
they decided to disband
 as a group
 even though they continued 
some projects together
 since being treated 
as a caucus hurt their effectiveness

 "Our goal now is to make 
the AFL-CIO 
and the unions in it
 as successful as possible,"
 Stern says.
 "The existence of NUP was a distraction.
 We can get back together again."

There is wide support 
for encouraging more voluntary mergers
 which can increase efficiency
 or help shrinking unions survive
 Yet many mergers
 such as the incorporation 
of some small garment unions 
into the United Food and Commercial Workers 
rather than UNITE, 
make little strategic sense.
 The question is,
 what qualifies as a "good" merger 
and who decides?

 For example, although the UNITE merger
 with HERE may ultimately work, 
it doesn't follow Stern's guidelines.

Stern wanted mergers 
to align unions 
with well-defined sectors
--although he later included 
both industries and occupations,
 blurring his categories.

 "I don't think you can decide 
to continue the AFL vs. CIO vs. Wobbly debate
 over the best way to organize unions," 
Stern says,
 referring to the debate 
over craft and industrial unionism
 "The AFL and CIO never reconciled
 their differences.
 They just decided to stop competing.
 We never philosophically
 reached agreement.
 And it's only gotten worse." 

That's certainly true,
 but logical as it seems, 
it's not always easy to define 
one best approach.
 For example, CWA executive vice president 
Larry Cohen argues 
that workers can have many communities 
of interest 
that unite them 
and give them power, 
including a common industry,
 employer, occupation or region.

 The balance among different
 potential organizational identities 
and strengths isn't always obvious.

 While some strategists 
think the construction craft unions
 should move toward a construction industry union,
 others argue that the craft model
 is not only still workable 
n construction but may also be appealing 
to many technical and professional workers

, who already are nearly half 
of all union members 
and a promising constituency
for organizing. 

One alternative to mergers 
or strategic leadership 
of a few unions 
along industry lines 
would be greater cooperation
 among all unions in an industry,
 as promoted by the AFT 
(which organizes nurses,
 an area SEIU sees as part of its
 healthcare domain). 

But Stern is skeptical.
 "We've talked to [the AFT] 
many times about doing things jointly,
" he said with some pique.
 "It's never happened in healthcare,
 our industry,
 or in their industry, school systems. 
Voluntarism doesn't work. 
The [multi-union] Houston Organizing Project
 didn't work. 
The building trades project 
in Las Vegas didn't work.
 We've got to stop trying things 
that don't work. 
We are in a voluntary association
 that has tried voluntary efforts,
 and we're now down to 8 percent
      of the private sector."

If the objective 
is increased union growth,
 it's not clear 
that mergers are the answer.
 Whatever merits they offer,
 union mergers 
in the United States 
and around the world
 rarely lead to union growth,
 according to several studies
, certainly not without
 serious internal transformation.

 Indeed, competition among unions
 actually stimulated organizing
 when both the AFL and CIO
 were fighting for members
 before their merger in 1955.

 But with Bush rather 
than FDR in the White House 
and no sign of a spontaneous working-class upsurge
 competition now seems
 more likely to be counterproductive
 The big question is whether unions 
can learn to work more closely together
 perhaps turning 
the AFL-CIO into a real alliance
 as NUP was trying to do among a few unions
 not a feudal court
 Under such conditions
 with each union 
more accountable
 to every other as well as
 to its members
 productive realignments 
might develop more naturally.

"There's no panacea, 
whether spending more money or mergers," 
Stern says, 
"but there are things 
that work better or worse.
 Resources matter, 
strategy matters,
 staff and leadership matter,
 collective bargaining matters.
 None is sufficient alone.
 When you're missing too many, 
there's no possibility for growth.
 When we have ten or twenty unions,
 does the world change overnight?
 No. But I guarantee that there will be
 no change if we don't." 

It's unclear whether a workable compromise 
can be forged.
 UNITE HERE's Wilhelm,
 who declines comment
 on perpetual rumors
 that he will challenge Sweeney 
for the AFL-CIO presidency,
 favors a few unions' 
taking the lead in core industries 
but recognizes that many will keep 
organizing outside their usual jurisdictions.

 "It's clear we're not going 
to be able to make 
a set of rules preventing people 
from organizing outside their industry,"
 he says
 "but if we look at the 90 percent
 [of workers] 
who are unorganized
 and divvy up responsibility
 we can do a lot
 If we fight over a tiny portion
 of the workforce 
while 90 percent are unorganized,
 it's stupid." 

If each union can be persuaded 
to lay out a strategic plan
, showing how much 
it will devote to organizing 
in both its historic core 
and in wide-open areas, 
they might find they have 
more than enough
 to do without stepping 
on each other.

There is substantial support 
for giving unions dues rebates 
to encourage organizing 
in their core areas,
 but there are several problems.
 Not only is it tricky
 to define each union's core,
 it's hard to determine
 who would qualify, 
though giving rebates
 only for successful organizing
 might work best.

 Massive rebates would also eat deeply
 into the AFL-CIO budget.

 Although there's widespread support
 for streamlining the AFL-CIO,
 there are virtually no proposals 
on what to cut. 
Indeed, nearly every plan 
proposes costly new programs 
for the fed,
 such as helping to start
 new unions 
in unorganized industries 
as both the AFL and CIO did years ago

. "You can't have a rebate discussion
 before you have a discussion
 of the roles and responsibilities
 of the federation and affiliates,"
 argues Laborers president 
Terry O'Sullivan, 
"and then based on that discussion,
 what kind of budget you need." 

If union leaders seem not to have 
resolved desires to both streamline
 and expand the AFL-CIO, 
they do want more 
of a voice about whatever it does.
 But the plan to give more power
 to the ten to fifteen biggest unions
 pushed by the Teamsters
 has led women and minorities 
who had long fought 
to gain a place 
on the expanded executive committee 
to complain 
that they would be shut out
 with a small group 
of white men in power. 

Many agree at least in principle 
on expanding and making permanent 
labor's successful political work.

 AFSCME particularly emphasizes 
reaching workers in suburbs 
and exurbs where labor was weak 
in the 2004 elections, 
developing a stronger labor presence
 in the red states 
and strengthening 
the new Working America organization
 for nonunion workers. 

But there's emerging disagreement
 on strategy. 

While many unions want 
to concentrate on expanding labor's 
influence within the Democratic Party

 Wilhelm, with support from others,
 argues for greater independence
 from the Democrats. 

Unions, he says, 
should be
"not only much more open 
to sensible Republicans 
but we need to find opportunities
 to withhold support 
from Democrats 
who don't support working people 
and, where appropriate, 
run in primaries 
with people who do support working people."

It's Not Just the Structure 

Broad as the debate has been,
 it hasn't focused much 
on the vision and purpose 
of the movement,
 or on developing a strategy
 that new structures should serve.
 Some think it's been 
"vacuous and empty," 
in the words of one organizer,
 for failing to emphasize 
grassroots mobilization. 

"I think we need more focus on members'
 role in winning back the right
 to organize and bargain collectively
 than we've had in this discussion," 
says AFL-CIO organizing director Stewart Acuff

. "And, of course,
 mobilizing members requires 
members to have real investment 
and ownership in their unions." 

Indeed, research by Kate Bronfenbrenner
 of Cornell University 
shows that unions win most often 
when they mount multifaceted campaigns 
built around workers' acting 
as if they were already in a union

 Although on opposite sides 
regarding structural issues
 both Cohen of the CWA 
and O'Sullivan of the Laborers agree
 as O'Sullivan says, 
that "this is about worker empowerment.
 We need to actively engage 
our rank-and-file workers 
more than ever before." 

But there are differing views
 of what worker empowerment means
. "I don't think people join unions
 for democracy in this country,"
 claims Stern, 
who has faced internal rebellions 
and criticism for shortchanging democracy 
within SEIU. 

"I think they join unions
 to gain strength to change their lives
 So it's not like democracy 
isn't a value
 but democracy isn't an end"
rights and power at work are

 Member mobilization is important for power
 but democracy does not always lead 
to mobilization
 Stern argues
 and without the strength 
that comes from good organizing
 there's no possibility 
for real industrial democracy

 Although members can be educated 
to support organizing
 they are often inclined 
to favor more services 
for themselves or lower dues
 not organizing. 

With a swipe at SEIU,
 the AFT argues 
that a strategy for union renewal
 must focus on labor's broad social values
 not just union power
 structures and procedures
 "If we believe 
in self-determination 
in the society at large
 our movement needs 
to promote democracy 
in crafting the means 
for getting there," 
the AFT proposal states.
 "We cannot [adopt] corporate culture
 vocabulary and values
 as our own and thereby run 
the risk of simply redistributing power 
within a diminishing labor movement
 instead of increasing power for
 and for the good of
 all working people everywhere." 

"The fundamental question,"
 Cohen argues,
 "is a voice at work--not only a voice,
 but effective participation
 in the way decisions are made at work." 
If that's the goal, 
then internal union democracy 
is necessary but not sufficient.
 It's necessary because 
workers do want a union 
in which they ultimately make decisions
 and can check abuses of power
 not simply a force working 
on their behalf
 And a union in which members
 do not have a voice 
is not likely to provide the voice
 at work that an increasingly well-educated 
workforce wants
But democracy alone 
is not an organizing strategy
 Unions need effective structures
 organizers who can mobilize members
 adequate resources
 solidarity
 strategy and leadership

 Those are neither identical 
to democracy nor guaranteed
 by democracy

 Ultimately, workers are not
 well served by either
 weak democratic 
or strong autocratic institutions

 

The need for strategic
 focused growth for power
 is undeniable
 Stern rightly urges unions
 to build institutions 
that can match the power 
of global corporations 
and raise the standards
 for workers across an industry
 But it is equally important
 to create a broad working-class movement
 for economic democracy 
driven by existing union members 
and newly recruited workers
 Whatever compromise structural reforms 
they finally adopt
 labor leaders must overcome 
their institutional rivalries 
to recognize 
that they have at least as much shared interest
 in the success of organizing 
as they do in political victory

 The cheery side of labor's plight 
is that even though 
there are many obstacles to organizing
 there's no shortage of opportunities

 The next few months 
will test how labor plans 
to rise to that challenge." 

BLAH  DEE BLAH BLAH BLAH 

========================================  

 
 
 

more back seat driver-age

  
Labor Pains: Eight Simple Rules
Jonathan Tasini 
February 28, 2005

    
You must be living under a rock if you're progressive and don't know there's a serious debate underway about the future of organized labor. Here, labor analyst Tasini goes beyond the big personalities in the debate and focuses on the issues at stake for the American worker.

Jonathan Tasini is president of the Economic Future Group and writes his "Working In America" columns for TomPaine.com on an occasional basis.

Perhaps it’s fitting that the AFL-CIO Executive Council , at which the roiling debate over the future of labor will be played out, is being held in the land of fantasy: Las Vegas. Don’t get me wrong: the fact that there even is a debate—and a sharp one at that—is a great thing. But, count me as one who doubts that the current debate will lead to the changes needed. These rules will help you understand what is happening in Sin City this week and how to tell whether anything really will change.

Rule #1: As Deep Throat counseled, follow the money. Several unions are pushing a proposal to rebate up to 50 percent of the dues paid to the AFL-CIO back to unions that put the money into organizing. Other than weakening the AFL-CIO (and you can believe that’s good or bad), this may not actually result in many new union members. Virtually every union could organize more effectively today (though whether they can be successful is another issue involving strategy and the corporate warfare against workers who try to unionize). Why they don’t is a deeper question that a rebate won’t answer. More than a decade ago, the AFL-CIO set up an organizing fund that was supposed to support campaigns launched by individual unions; to tap into the fund, unions were supposed to meet certain criteria. The fund ended up doling out money to anyone mouthing the word “organizing” with no criteria for accountability. Nothing in the current proposals for rebates sets any kind of real standards by which unions will be judged to have invested the rebated money into organizing.

Rule #2: To quote Don Corleone, this is business, not personal. When the Service Employees kicked this whole debate off last year, critics skewered the SEIU proposals by claiming they were being driven by arrogance and ego. I was shocked—shocked!—to read that leaders of big organizations might be arrogant and have big egos. Mark me down as one person who isn’t interested in selfless, wallflower leaders—they are likely ineffective or lying about their real motives.  While all the other “progressive” labor leaders said nothing as the ship was sinking, SEIU provoked a debate—and people should be kissing their behinds, not bickering over style. If you read personal attacks, assume that people don’t like the substance.

Rule #3: Size does matter. SEIU ticked a lot of people off by suggesting the AFL-CIO be empowered to force mergers among unions. The critics used a lot of convenient terms such as “democracy” but the truth is people don’t want to give up their positions of power, even if that would be good for the movement. That there are too many ineffective unions, set up for an economy that doesn’t exist anymore, has been obvious for sometime. (I wrote about this in The Edifice Complex  10 years ago, a revised version of which will be out in May). Here's one suggestion that might make labor leaders accept mergers: Create a labor House of Lords for those union leaders left without organizations to run, a kind of advisory body with prestige but no power (throw in a small salary and health care coverage to sweeten the deal). In any case, it’s unlikely the merger ideas will go very far.

Rules #4: Size doesn’t matter. Mergers are not going to solve labor’s problem. In fact, they could do the opposite: Unions that merge may all of a sudden feel fat and happy with more members and more money.

Rule #5: It doesn’t matter who is at the head if the culture stays the same. Forget the question of whether John Sweeney should step down or be challenged (he says he’s running). Having a new AFL-CIO president will only matter if there is a credible strategy and plan with real accountability—not a culture that favors the least-common denominator (meaning, every decision ends up tasting like vanilla to keep everyone happy) and an environment where people turn a blind eye to incompetence or laziness.

Rule #6:   More of a failed program is not a strategy. John Sweeney has announced that labor will spend more money on politics, after almost 30 years of questionable results. Hello? Unions have attempted to reverse declining power in the workplace by playing in a political arena that is happy to take labor money but not really change the rules of the game when it comes to workers' right to organize . I think we should take a break at the federal level of politics and build power at the workplace and community. Shifting money earmarked for the coffers of politicians to projects like the Apollo Alliance (which is pushing for a multi-billion dollar investment in good-paying jobs in sustainable energy projects) is a sounder strategy likely to gain labor more clout in the long haul.

Rule #7: It’s about China. Until labor has a meaningful plan to deal with the global movement of capital and an economic system driven solely by wages, the rest of the debate is a waste of time. If labor can’t figure out China, it will end up being a movement representing only people who work in industries that can’t pick up and move. Admittedly, this is not an easy task. It’s not easy to figure out how to get a British or German union to put its political capital on the line for Americans and vice versa; across borders, unions have different cultures and bargaining histories. To its credit, SEIU is investing a fair amount of time and money into trying to create some skeleton of a global labor movement. If you don’t hear a plan for a real global strategy, we’re doomed.

Rule #8: Strategy matters. Here’s a shocker: I’m uneasy about calls to weaken the AFL-CIO. Not because I think the Federation does such a great job (though there are some wonderful people at the AFL-CIO). Labor needs a strong center, whether it’s the AFL-CIO or something else, to enforce a labor-wide organizing strategy. With an economy driven by powerful multinationals and a pervasive anti-union culture, individual unions have no prayer operating alone. Join me and cringe when you hear left-wing academics, union “democracy” types or labor activists trumpet a strategy based on union “culture” and the spontaneous upsurge of the rank-and-file; most of these pontificators have never organized a single worker. There has to be a strong vision and strategy articulated by someone.

I hope I leave Vegas inspired and hopeful (and, at least, with a few dollars left in my pocket)—and I’ll be blogging from there daily at Working Life to let you know if you should feel optimistic, too. Either way, we can be at least hopeful that, thanks to unions like UNITE-HERE, the Teamsters and SEIU, there is a serious debate underway that has the potential to chart a new path for labor.  

 

a vote for stone age unionism

   under construction 

Reinventing Trade Unionism for the 21st Century

The future of organized labor in the US:

Reinventing trade unionism for the 21st century

    "The essence of trade unionism is social uplift.
    The labor movement has been the haven for the
    dispossessed, the despised the neglected, the
    downtrodden, the poor." -- A. Philip Randolph

An important debate has commenced within the ranks of
organized labor regarding the future of the movement.
From our experience we know that the 'top-to-bottom'
approach to revitalizing workers' organizations will
not foster meaningful membership participation and
support. The debate must be joined by rank-and-file
union members and leaders, other labor activists,
scholars and the broad array of supporters of trade
unionism. It must be open, frank and constructive,
recognizing that we all have a stake in the outcome of
these discussions.

The following represents the collective opinion of
several individuals from different sections of the
labor movement who have joined together to let our
voices be heard as the debate unfolds. Our
intervention in this debate is at least partly
motivated by our sense that the concerns and
perspectives of people of color and women are all but
absent in these discussions about labor's future.
The irony, of course, is that our respective demographic
groups represent the future of organized labor in the
USA, if organized labor is to have a future at all.

We look forward to your feedback.

                   * * * * * *

The economic and political changes over the last thirty
years both in the USA as well as globally, have
resulted in a far more hostile environment for labor
unions specifically and for working people generally.
In this context, contrary to the spirit of A. Philip
Randolph's notion that the essence of trade unionism is
social uplift, the trade union movement is rarely
looked to today as a voice of progress and innovation,
or a consistent ally of progressive social movements.

It is not just that organized labor declined as a
percentage of the workforce since 1955; or that it
carried out unfocused growth, evolving eventually into
no growth; or that it emphasized servicing its current
members rather than planting the seeds for future
growth. It is that organized labor looks at itself as
separate and apart from the rest of the working class,
and, for that matter, does not see itself as the
champion of workers and their communities, but rather a
mechanism for advancing the interests of those it
currently represents.

For organized labor in the USA, the path away from
oblivion must begin with the recognition of the vastly
different situation that the working class faces in the
early 21st century from what existed even twenty years
ago. Time and space do not permit an exhaustive
examination of all of these changes. Much has been
written about it in various journals and books. Suffice
to say that the growth of neo-liberal globalization
has represented a dramatic change in the approach of
capitalism toward both the working class as well as
towards society as a whole. Multinational
corporations and their allies have concluded that the
terms of any 'social partnership' must be altered in
their fundamentals at the expense of working people.
This view -neo-liberalism- has grown in importance,
coming to dominate the thinking of both major US
political parties and has guided the shift to the
political Right in the ruling circles of the USA.

The current situation necessitates a new approach to
strategy, tactics, and fundamentally, the vision of
trade unionism. This is more than the production of
new mission statements, but instead rests on the
necessity to rethink the relationship of the union to
its members, to the employer(s), to government, to US
society as a whole, and to the larger global village.
Can the union, we must ask, as an institution and as a
representative of a larger movement, rise to the
challenge of being a means to confront injustice, or is
the union condemned to be solely an institutional
mechanism to lessen the pain of contemporary capitalism
on those fortunate to be members of organized labor?

In this context, we propose the following:

1. There is a need for a vision that includes, but is
not limited to, organizing the unorganized: Missing
from the current debate is a clear statement as to what
the trade union movement actually believes. Of course
there must be massive organizing of the unorganized.
But a sole focus demonstrates the same inflexibly that
reformers are attempting to root out. In spite of the
qualified success of the organize-above-all-else
approach, it is still being touted as the panacea to
what ails the trade union movement. As essential as
is organizing, alone it is not enough.

When the Congress of Industrial Organizations began to
come into existence (with the formation, first, of the
AFL's Committee on Industrial Organization) in 1935,
there was a very different social, economic, and
political climate. Yet this situation is frequently
cited, ahistorically it should be noted, as a parallel
to the moment in which we find ourselves.

While there are critical matters relative to the
structure of unions, the AFL-CIO and organized labor as
a whole that must be settled, these are not the issues
which should be the starting point for any debate. Why,
we must ask, should millions of unorganized workers
potentially sacrifice so much in order to join or form
unions? Why should millions of potential allies of
organized labor spend any amount of time away from
their own core issues, to unite with the demands of
organized labor? What does a reconstructed, if not
reborn, trade union movement have to say to people of
color and women that goes beyond the tried and true
rhetoric of the past? What are unions doing about the
increasing degradation of work, i.e., that even
unionized workers are working harder, faster and longer
than in the past, providing us less free time and
increasing the level of stress on individuals, families
and friendship circles? If these questions are not
answered organized labor will not serve as a beacon of
attraction to the millions of non-union workers in the
USA, and, in fact, the rebirth of organized labor will
be still-born.

2. The union movement must be unapologetically pro-
public sector and pro-public service: Over the years,
since the emergence of neo-liberalism, with the
corresponding rejection of positive government
intervention in the economy as the dominant philosophy
directing globalization, the US trade union movement
has addressed the symptoms rather than the disease.
Thus, it has spoken out against privatization, cuts in
social services, and right-wing tax proposals that
reduce taxes on the wealthy and deceive the rest of us.
This is all important, but organized labor has not tied
this all together into a package. A clear example of
this was the failure of much of organized labor to
dissect the actual politics and economics of the
Clinton administration, as it advanced institutions
like the World Trade Organization, and supported
notions of free trade, all of which undermined (and
continues to undermine) the notion of the public
sphere.

3. Organized labor in the USA must study the current
economic and political situation, and understand that
there is no space for a compromise with any view that
rejects positive government intervention in the
economy. Organized labor must also refuse to support
individuals and/or organizations who believe that
progress and social justice can be achieved by
subordinating workers' interests to those of unregulated
businesses and financiers.

4. The union movement must stand for the expansion of
democracy: Organized labor must stand AND fight for an
expansion of democracy beyond the limits of formal
legality. It must be the champion of the fight against
racism, sexism, hetero-sexism, xenophobia, religious
bias, and other forms of intolerance.

5. In the current national and international situation,
democracy is under attack. Intolerance and
irrationalism seem to be gaining the upper hand in the
relations among people. Minorities are being excluded
if not exterminated as a growing competition for
diminishing resources takes place at precisely the same
moment that immense amounts of wealth are being
accumulated by the few.

Civil liberties are under assault. In the name of
opposing terrorism, governments, including our own, are
passing legislation that restricts the right to
organize and protest. Those challenging the status quo
are often viewed with a jaundiced eye, with the
assumption being that they are insufficiently loyal and
patriotic. Discussions are being shut down in the name
of fighting the common enemy, depending on who that
enemy happens to be at any one point.

Elections are becoming a sham. In the USA the Electoral
College effectively disenfranchises millions of voters,
particularly in the South, and while the US demands the
practice of one-person/one-vote internationally, at the
federal level we have nothing approximating this.
Compounding this problem is the evolution of
gerrymandering into the equivalent of a science and the
creation of so-called 'safe electoral districts,' where
opposition can be counted out. The piece de resistance
is election fraud, always part of the US political
environment, but now upgraded with the use of a
combination of computer technology and voter
intimidation, particularly directed at communities of
color. Furthermore, millions of felons who are primarily
people of color are disenfranchised.

The union movement must engage in struggles against
these various undemocratic practices and move us away
from a fortress-like society.

The future of the right to join or form trade unions is
integrally linked to the future of democracy in the
USA. In its own obvious interests, the union movement
must unite the demand for the right to form or join
unions - the right to organize - with the overall battle
for democracy.

To be credible champions of democracy the union
movement must fight for democracy within its own ranks.
If our members believe that they have no control over
the future of their own organizations, or are
inadequately represented in them then we have failed.
We will have created paternalistic organizations rather
than organizations of the workers themselves.

6. We must have a U.S. union movement structure suited
to advancing organizing of the unorganized workers:
The question of the shape and structure of the US union
movement cannot be driven by a concern about jobs for
the officers and staffs of the current unions. It must
be driven by the need to organize into unions the
millions of unorganized workers who wish to join or
form unions. It must provide legitimate
representational structures for people of color and
women, and ensure that these structures make up a
significant segment of the leadership of the trade
union movement that reflects the diversity and
aspirations of its membership. This means not only the
inclusion of AFL-CIO constituency groups, but also an
organized and active process of recruiting new
delegates and leaders representative of the workforce
in their respective industries, and the creation of
opportunities for younger trade unionists to learn and
test their own leadership abilities.

The structure of organized labor must orient unions
toward their core jurisdictions -- i.e., toward their
regional, occupational or industrial base. The logic
of this is to be found in the matter of expertise and
efficiency. Those unions that have displayed a
commitment to a particular industry, occupation and/or
region will tend to be more studied in those arenas and
better situated to strengthen the industrial power of
the members.

Unions should only enter into new industrial sectors,
occupations or regions if and when they are prepared to
make the LONG-TERM commitment to that sector and have
demonstrated a willingness to work with other unions in
that same sector or region.

7. The union movement must reshape its political program
to focus on the needs of the working class: The union
movement has made the repeated mistake of assuming that
it can tell its members how to vote, and that the
Democratic Party structure will automatically represent
their interest. What we promote as political education
is rarely more than campaign publicity. The promise of
the 1995 reform movement was for a different political
program. We need to develop popular economic and
political education programs that speak to where our
members are socially and politically. Such a program
should aim to create a framework through which they may
begin to understand the political, economic and social
issues of our times.

We must organize our members - politically - into
popular organizations which are community-centered,
concerned with politics, sensitive to different social
groupings, and able to branch out into the community
where they, their families and friends can find a means
to participate in a relevant political practice. This
means the creation of electoral political organizations
at the grassroots level that can engage in the arduous
but necessary fight for power for working people. PACs
and 527s cannot replace popular, mass-based
organizations.

8. The union movement must organize in the South and
Southwest: The November 2004 elections demonstrate two
interesting things. First, there is a direct (though
not exclusive) relationship between union membership
and one's tending to vote in one's own economic
interests. Two, the Black and Latino vote in the South
and the Southwest, while critical at the local, regional
and state level, has not had the same effect in
Presidential races due to the undemocratic nature of
the Electoral College.

The union movement has put off organizing the South and
the Southwest for too long. Successes in organizing
the South and the Southwest will serve as a bridgehead
for progressive politics in those regions, and allow
the union movement to utilize these bases in order to
advance a progressive agenda and build broader
political support. Thus, resources need to be put into
organizing that assumes that organizing is a long-term,
strategic process rather than an event or action.

Any organizing in these regions must appreciate that an
inability to embrace the African American and Chicano
social movements respectively will result in
disappointment, if not failure. Simply focusing union
attention on the South and the Southwest, while an
advance over what most unions are doing today, is
insufficient. The unionizing of these regions must be
connected to the fight for political power for
traditionally disenfranchised groups. During the 1988
Presidential campaign, the Rev. Jesse Jackson put it
best: "In one hand, you have a union card; in the other
hand, you have a voting card."

9. State federations and central labor councils must be
democratic, inclusive, young and audacious: Too many
central labor councils and state federations, due to
their lack of representation, are disconnected from the
realities that their members face, not to mention the
realities faced by the bulk of the working class.
Central labor councils and state federations must
represent strategic centers for local political action,
coalition-building, member education and inter-union
support. If any of this is to work, then central labor
councils and state federations must look more like
their memberships. Just as with the national AFL-CIO,
the local and state bodies must provide legitimate
representational structures for people of color and
women. The local and state bodies must ensure that
these structures make up a significant segment of the
leadership of the trade union movement, thereby
reflecting the diversity and aspirations of its
membership. This means not only the inclusion of AFL-
CIO constituency groups, but an organized and active
process of recruiting new delegates and leaders
representative of the workforce in their respective
industries, and the creation of opportunities for
younger trade unionists to learn and test their own
leadership abilities.

10. The union movement needs real membership education:
It is presumptuous to think that either organized and
unorganized workers will blindly follow or adhere to a
certain point of view without providing them with a
coherent and up-to-scale mechanism by which they can
access information. Without, however, the necessary
resources for a significant, member-focused educational
effort, it will be impossible to provide union members
a different vision of trade unionism, achieve their
loyalty, or motivate them.

Education not only means imparting information, but
dialogue and debate as well. A reinvigorated labor
movement needs an integrated education program that
joins together an examination of domestic and
international economics, as well as a critical look at
US foreign policy. In addition, such education program
must foster the development of a framework for
advancing discussions about class, race, gender,
capitalism and the fight for power for working people.
As such, the notion that organizing can take place in
the absence of education or that education is somehow a
distraction or a draw away from organizing is absurd.
Paying attention to the education of our base is a
profound sign of respect. Calls for mobilization in
the absence of a coherent and unified framework are
disempowering, irrespective of the intentions, and will
not invoke worker militancy or support.

11. The US union movement must build both global union
partnerships and solidarity with others fighting global
injustice: The US trade union movement has made great
advances away from the Cold War trade unionism of the
past. In spite of these advances, the US trade union
movement continues to be eyed with some level of
suspicion by our friends beyond our borders, in part
because of a frequent perception that we are engaged in
protectionism. Excellent steps at union-to-union
cooperation have, however, been taking place, but these
must go much further. A platform for the
transformation of the International Confederation of
Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the global union
federations/international trade union secretariats must
be advanced, and should genuinely strengthen the role
of unions from the global South (Africa, Asia, the
Caribbean and Latin America). The US union movement
must adopt an approach that encourages union-to-union
relationships and worker-to-worker exchanges, up to and
including the reform and/or creation of new
international labor bodies that support real solidarity. 
In addition, the US union movement must develop means
and mechanisms for providing concrete support to union
movements and other progressive movements involved in
the struggle for global justice. Such a stand must
represent resistance to the race to the bottom being
conducted by global capitalism against workers in all
countries. We can not engage in or be perceived to be
engaging in selective international solidarity, i.e.,
solidarity only when it is in defense of US workers
and our issues. Genuine international solidarity will
also necessarily involve a willingness, on the part
of the US trade union movement, to challenge US
foreign policy when it undermines national
self-determination and human rights.

___

We, who sign this document, do so with an interest in
advancing discussion and debate within the union
movement. In alphabetical order,

Kate Bronfenbrenner, Director of Labor Education
Research, Cornell University*

Donna Dewitt, President, South Carolina AFL-CIO*

Bill Fletcher, Jr., President, TransAfrica Forum*

Patricia Ann Ford, former Executive Vice President,
Service Employees International Union*

Fernando Gapasin, President of the Central Oregon Labor
Council and President of AFSCME 1108*

Elena Herrada, President, United Catering, Restaurant &
Hotel Workers, Local 1064, RWDSU*

Tom Juravich, Professor and Director, Labor Center
UMass-Amherst*

Ruth Needleman, Labor Studies, Indiana University*

Robert Phillips, policy analyst

Steven C. Pitts, Ph.D., UC Berkeley*

Katie Quan, UC Berkeley*

Ken Riley, President, Local 1422, International
Longshoremen's Association*

Marchel Smiley, National President AFRAM-SEIU*

David Bacon, labor journalist

* organizational affiliation for identification only

Statement Endorsers (list in progress-submit to
bill_taf@yahoo.com)

_______________________________________________________

FBI nite mare visions : stalinoid sleeper cellz

 no 

simply no


no no no no no 

sure 
"j'accuse"
is once again  
the  paranormal
right flinger's 
 rave fad 
   of the moment 


but no way 
iz 
 
this plain vanilla 
union  institute 
a menace to bel aire's 
fend shway of life

no agent o'banyon no 

don't believe me?

then go 
ask the shade
     of J'edgar
         himself  

 
=======================

-----------------------------

" a well known
          hibernation chamber"
for sleepy stalin-estist 
no we are not
by any stretch 

" a blastoidal 
  red blood cell mass
just waitin to re-activate " 



 forget the baitin boys
          stop buggin us
poor workin stiffs 


---------------------------------

instead of us wagery knot holers

want some red hotz
then 
why don't ya 
 try playin 
with some  trots
             instead

i understand
 there's
a few of em 
still out there
  runnin around 


try lookin
under cars 
on ventura boulevarde

especially   
in  rush hour traffic 

=======================

unity in the house

just red a piece by scott marshall

the thanatoidal  cpusa's  

resident union wizzard


sad sap sorry slobber 

==============================

 jesus why even imagine the AFL-XXX
  is worth saving

talk about 
somethin 
          small enough 
   to drown in a bathtub....


fuck it

nows the time to scrap the crap guys

we got nothin 
to lose here
but our scabs 
----------------------------

besides whats the fear
 donophilics 

for fucks sake 

"kaiser to be"
            wilhelm's
 rubber legged challenge
is pure house nigger shit  


and not withstanding
andy boys 
jerry lewis like self promotion


there is no serious
          radical
      threat  here
                  to el sweeno's castle 
                                     any way 

would that there 

fuckin were comrades

would that there fuckin were

====================================

viva las vegas : march madness

gettin hyped up mates ?

ready fer the biggo  shoot
    out in snake town ?


cause yahooooooooooey 
thiz march fanzz

the executive soviet
           faces off 
   under the bright 
            casino lights 



subject A

the 10 year sweeney legacy :


latest  Labor Department up date :

 12.5 percent 
of the  US workforce is unionized

  private sector  unionization
                
   led duck fucked
              
                     at     under 8  percent 

and the   public sector?
 
 fallen baby fallen ......

 from 37  percent
 in 2003 
to 36   percent 
             last year 




so 
subject  B

  WHAT THE FUCKS UP  

============================================================

	Posted by herb jr. jr. at 05:00 PM
		| Comments (0)
	
		| TrackBack