I just got an e-mail from Joe Hansen, International President of the United Food and Commercial Workers. Okay, it was a mass e-mail sent out over the union’s “Union Voice” list. The meat of it is significant, but not surprising. UFCW’s Executive Board has authorized Hansen to withdraw from the AFL-CIO. This makes UFCW the second union, after SEIU, to authorize its president to pull out of the AFL-CIO if the July convention proves dissatisfactory.
The five international unions that make up the Change to Win Coalition – SEIU and UFCW, Unite Here, the Teamsters and the Laborers – held a coming out party today in Washington. They voted on a constitution, by-laws and guiding principles, and then held a press conference.
That sounds like a rival labor federation to me.
It’s tempting to make comparisons to the old CIO. Of course, the political climate and times are very different from the 1930’s, and I don’t think there’s a real John L. Lewis or Walter Reuther in this bunch. However, the playbook is similar. The CIO started out as a coalition/federation within the AFL, and operated as such for a number of years before finally breaking with the AFL and competing. However, where the CIO was much smaller than the AFL when it split, and was still relatively smaller by the time they merged in 1955 (the AFL actually organized like the dickens during those twenty years, too), this Change to Win Coalition is actually a huge chunk representing between 35 and 40 percent of the AFL-CIO’s total members. If they did split, and were joined by the Carpenters and the NEA, the two competing federations would be roughly even.
I don’t believe they will split…this year. The disaffiliation votes are similar to strike authorization votes. Nobody’s going to undercut their lead negotiators by taking away their strongest threat. Expect the other three unions in Change to Win to likewise authorize a split, but don’t put too much stock in it. Do realize, however, that Change to Win now represents something more more real and fundamental than a personality clash among various union presidents. This is now very much a process or uniting and coordinating unions that are serious about new member organizing. It wasn’t just five international presidents who voted on Change to Win’s constitution today, but also 50 influential local leaders, including some (like Peter Ward) who are often seen as having their own agendas that are distinct from their IU’s.
I believe that Change to Win will act as a federation within the federation for at least the next few years. This is to avoid the raiding campaigns that would surely come with a split, but also to lead by example. They’re betting that their program (fewer, larger unions; strategic, coordinated campaigns) will result in major organizing successes for them, and a huge influx of new members, that other international unions will sign on. Or else, they’re cynically betting that if they spend the next five years growing, while other unions decline, then they will dominate the next AFL-CIO convention and can finally ram their agenda through.