The New York Times has published yet another of its series of articles encapsulating developments in the power struggle within the labor federation. It’s hard to express how disappointed I am in how this debate has degenerated. What started out as an exciting difference of opinion on the way forward for organizing masses of new union members, taking on Corporate America and winning huge gains for working families has wound up being just another acrimonious electoral campaign.
First, there’s John Sweeney, who, as a public speaker may be as electrifying as dirt, but is nevertheless responsible for a minor renaissance that saved “Big Labor” from a premature death in the mid-1990’s, and who would have been looked back upon fondly by historians for sparking the resurgence in labor’s fortunes that we all hope is just around the corner. Though he promised to serve just ten years when first elected in 1995 and even once attempted to amend the AFL-CIO’s constitution to mandate the retirement of officers who have reached 70 years of age, Sweeney, at 71, is actively dismantling his legacy in order to serve one more term (the history of such power struggles suggests that he should have rode off into the sunset and handed the reins to his #2, the widely-liked Richard Trumka). The Organizing Institute will be greatly scaled back. The Union Summer program (one of the only youth-focused union programs) will be scrapped altogether. And 30% of the AFL-CIO’s staff will be “downsized” in a mean-spirited effort to placate the opposition.
The opposition, meanwhile, has backed off their most radical plans for forcing mergers and jurisdiction consolidation. Their newest proposal basically calls for the Federation to do what the Sweeney administration did, but faster and harder, while shrinking its budget by diverting more money to the international unions whose intransigence and selfish agendas have undercut the goals of Sweeney, et. al.
My crude “faster, harder” double entendre is apt since, at the “Future of Labor Conference” at Queens College last Fall, SEIU Exec. VP Gerry Hudson boldly posited that “bigger is better” when it comes to union structure.
Harvard professor Elaine Barnard’s snarky rebuttal that “it’s not the size of the boat, but the motion in the ocean” should be even more appreciated now. While the various union presidents have beaten each other bloody over issues of personality and structure, an opportunity has been lost to wrestle with the labor movement’s strategy and message. Should we engage in large scale campaigns against major corporations to organize low-paid workers? Should we break with the Democratic party? Should we commit resources to the south or focus on improving laws in the northeast? Strengthen and improve international alliances and third-world coalitions?
Or should we replace a bunch of old white guys with a different bunch of not-quite-as-old guys and just keep doing what we’ve been doing, except faster, harder and with less dissent?