“…We Got Ideas, To Us That’s Real…”
I’m back in New York after ten days in Amherst, for the summer residency of the ULA Labor Studies program at UMass. The program is fantastic. The campus is beautiful. The curriculum is vital. The faculty is brilliant. The student body is awesome.
The community of students is really the reason to enroll in this program. It’s a great mix of union staffers, elected officers and rank-and-filers (many of whom are having their tuition paid for by their employers!). THis is exactly what I wanted: the opportunity to step away from my work twice a year and see the forest from the trees; to make the connections between public sector and private, the building trades and the service sector, globalization and our CLCs and global federations.
Just one example of why I’m glad I met all these people these last two weeks: the Machinists in the program were great guys (and gals). We’re talking about seasoned activists who organized dozens of shops and negotiated their first contracts. No nonsense, take-no-prisoners, been-there-done-that kinda guys who understandably must bristle at Andy Stern and arrogant little whiteboy technocrats in suits (like me!) who come along and say that everything must change. What a waste that we’ve argued ourselves into these corners instead of working together to figure out the way forward.
My take on The Split? At least it’s finally fucking happening. No more agonizing over what-ifs. No more waiting for the other shoe to drop. No more hiring freezes. Just do it and move on, already.
SEIU is out, but that’s no surprise. Teamsters are out, but that’s not a huge surprise given their history of moving in and out of the federation. UFCW is poised to quit, and that’s a shock. That’s America’s neighborhood union, and generally pretty cautious and conservative. Unite Here is keeping mum, and my gut tells me they’re staying put.
The federation is fundamentally weakened. The previously announced staff and department cuts are definite now, and likely to be deepened. With two of their major affiliates out of the AFL-CIO, the building trades might walk out the door, too.
Meanwhile, many of the affiliated national unions within SEIU and the Teamsters (like NAGE) are mulling their own splits, to go back into the federation. Additionally, the Central Labor Councils and state feds are surely gearing up for civil wars as locals of the renegade international unions either secede and take their per capita dues with them, or else fight to stay inside the local bodies only to watch loyal locals of the loyal IUs secede in order to avoid associating with such disloyal elements.
In his infinite wisdom, John Sweeney pushed through a resolution increasing the per capita dues to Central Labor Councils while demanding that non-AFL-CIO unions be refused membership into the CLCs, so that loyal unions are taxed at a higher rate in order to keep the CLCs financially viable while the house of labor demolishes itself (I’m sure that my old boss is crossing his fingers for a Unite-Here disaffiliation so he can avoid paying per-cap to the NYC CLC).
What is so wrong with allowing unity where we can achieve it? Wasn’t the big problem (according to the NUP one year ago) the lack of central authority and vision at the federation level? So why split and defund the fed and allow every union to go in its own direction?
And didn’t the CWA (and others) agree with the NUP that the lack of collaboration at the local level hurt Labor? So why force this split on our Central Labor Councils and force the duplication of efforts of two separate labor councils in each region?
Are Change to Win even bothering with creating a new federation? Are they simply letting he renegade international unions pocket the per-cap dues that would have gone to the AFL-CIO, the CLCs and the state feds and just letting every union do its own thing — the central criticism that sparked this whole debate in the first place.
We have enough enemies. Wal-Mart, Wholefoods, JetBlue, Cintas, Marriott, FedEx. Can we focus on those bastards instead of organizing against each other? What’s so painful about a principled agreement to go our own ways for awhile, but to unite where we can and avoid raiding or undercutting each other?
The Homeless Hilton
Mayor Bloomberg has announced plans to shut down the city’s largest homeless shelter, the 335 unit Carlton House in South Ozone Park, Queens. The mayor claims that there just aren’t enough homeless people to fill the former luxury hotel. The City’s Department of Homesless Services’ website brags, “This is the first time in DHS history that a facility has been closed solely because the capacity is no longer needed.”
Is the homeless population going down? “Oh certainly not,” protests Jeff Rabinovici, my good friend and comrade who is an outreach worker for Partnership for the Homeless, “According to the DHS’ latest accounting, it’s going up.” The number of families living in long term shelters is on the decline, due to a number of factors, including strong-arm tactics by the city. But the number of families checking into “drop-in” shelters (the nightly, first come, first serve shelters, where many of those who get a roof for the night don’t actually get a bed) is on the rise. And, of course, single homeless men are still the shelter system’s last priority, which is why you still see so many of them sleeping on the streets.
Obviously, Mayor Mike is playing an election year numbers game so that he can brag, “By investing in cost-efficient solutions, and bringing accountability and focused management attention to an issue many believed unmanageable, we have made unprecedented headway in relatively short order.” Yes, our CEO mayor has employed Arthur Anderson-style accounting in order to make the homeless problem go away!
There is an additional wrinkle. The Carlton House is operated by the city through a sub-contract with the Salvation Army. Apparently, the Salvation Army is losing many of its homeless outreach contracts with the city. The Bowery Residents Committee has been picking up many of those contracts and more by submitting low-ball bids to the city. The BRC pays its outreach workers, on average, about $5 an hour less than most other agencies (like the Salvation Army). This is the same Bowery Residents Committee that’s trying to evict CBGB’s. The BRC’s single-minded devotion to serving those who are most needy in our society is commendable. It would disappointing if such good work comes at the cost of further gentrifying the Bowery and denying their devoted, hard-working outreach workers a living wage.
There is no public word on what comes next for the Carlton House. The building began life as the Hilton JFK in the 1970’s. It turned out that people don’t want to pay for a luxury hotel room so near the roaring jets of an international airport, and so the hotel was re-christened a Best Western. The steady decline in business continued unabated, until its owners announced plans to cease operations in early 2002. The Carlton House holds a special place in my heart because the Hotel Employees union was planning to strike it (and a sister hotel) when I joined the staff. It was my first almost strike. At one point, we were going to physically occupy the building to prevent its closing. “Are you ready to get arrested?,” my boss asked me as she cackled with delight at the thought of being dragged out of there herself. Of course, I was, but it was unnecessary. The company settled, and gave the laid-off workers a massive severance package (not unlike the recent Plaza settlement).
Every time I’ve driven past the building, I remember the excitement of that fight, but also the sadness of all those lost jobs and dashed hopes. The construction of a luxury Hilton hotel in southwest Queens was the product of overly ambitious development plans, not unlike the Olympic dreams for Long Island City, or Ratner’s stadium-city of towers. The depressing site of this run-down and near-vacant hotel should serve as a warning to think twice and have a contingency plan before building more towers out yonder.
THe Carlton House should remain a homeless shelter. There is still a pressing need for such long-term housing for our city’s homeless families, and it makes the symbolism of the Homeless Hilton that much more potent. The big building plans at LIC, Atlantic Avenue, Williamsburg and elsewhere must include more affordable housing now, less those towers be relegated to homeless shelters years from now.
Change to Win
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.
Bigger, Faster, Harder: Organize My Teeming Masses, Baby!
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?