Yesterday, Monday, 26 September 2005, marked a turning point in the history of the trade union movement in the United States. Or it didn’t. It all depends on who you talk to.<\/p>\n
\nYesterday marked the opening of the founding convention of the Change to Win Coalition, a federation uniting seven unions — the Teamsters, Service Employees International Union, Carpenters, Laborers, Farm Workers, United Food and Commercial Workers, and UNITE HERE (clothing, hotel and restaurant workers).
\nAccording to some leaders of the AFL-CIO, the split which tore apart the “House of Labor” this summer had nothing to do with differences over organizing or politics or anything that really matters. Addressing the British Trades Union Congress (TUC) two weeks ago, one AFL-CIO officer denounced the unions which had broken away as “splitters”. It reminded me of a scene in the Monty Python film, “Life of Brian”.
\nAccording to the leaders of the unions which have left the AFL-CIO, today marks a new dawn. T-shirts being distributed to participants in today’s conference in St. Louis proclaim “New hope for American workers”.
\nI am in St. Louis now to see for myself what is going on.
\nLast night began with a “celebration” held in the St. Louis Convention Center, across the street from the (unionized) hotel where today’s proceedings will begin. The opening speaker was the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who had just returned from New Orleans. Jackson delivered a powerful address in the style made famous by Southern civil rights leaders like his mentor, Dr. Martin Luther King. And it revealed just how close the new federation would be to the traditions of the civil rights movement.
\nJackson was followed by a group of four Missouri state representatives who read aloud a resolution the state legislature had passed welcoming the convention to Missouri. The mayor also spoke. OK, it was a bit of a time-waster, but when Jim Hoffa came forward to speak, everybody woke up. Hoffa really had only one point to make, and it was to ask participants to avoid drinking beer. Not all beer — after all, this was a union convention — but the beer distributed by a St. Louis company locked into dispute with the Teamsters union. The company was trying to reduce the workers’ wages, cut their health benefits and so on. Hoffa called on delegates to join the Teamster picket line on Wednesday, after the conference adjourns.
\nBut what struck me was how ineffective unions still were in getting their message across. For example — today, I am scheduled to meet up with a local trade union activist, someone who is not a Teamster but belongs to another union, and in the emails we have exchanged, he’s offered to buy me a beer. And the beer he’s mentioned is the one the Teamsters are boycotting. Obvously, this is not the grapes boycott of the 1960s. Even trade union activists here in St. Louis don’t seem to know about the boycott.
\nHoffa also boasted of the union’s success in convincing the hotel in which the conference would be held to stop buying the boycotted beer. But he added — for the next 30 days. After that, the hotel is free to go on buying the boycotted beer. I can remember a time when the aim of a boycott was to stop people buying a product until the dispute was over, and not only for the next month. I guess we live in an age of diminished expectations.
\nHoffa and other speakers made reference to both the size of the organization and its name — and the more I listened, the more confused I became.
\nIn a handout given to journalists, the coalition claims to have “more than 5 million workers”. But several speakers referred to “6 million members”. A million members is nothing to be sniffed at — and it’s about time unions were honest about how many members they really have. Back in 1973, at the founding convention of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, St. Louis-born author and activist Michael Harrington announced that this organization would be the first in the history of the American left to be honest about its membership figures. Change to Win could learn something from Harrington, and tell everyone how many members it really has. If the number is closer to five million than six, all the better — it will make growth seem even more impressive.
\nSome critics of the new federation claim that only a couple of its unions actually grow — usually citing the SEIU as the only one that really does know how to organize new members. But most of the Change to Win unions brag about growing. For example, the smallest of the unions here — the United Farm Workers — claims that “union membership has grown with fresh election and contract victories” since the new president came into office eleven years ago. And every one of the affiliated unions has put organizing on the very top of their agendas.
\nAs for the name, it seems to be “Change to Win” — without the “coalition”, or anything else. But one of the speakers last night — I think it was Hoffa — made reference to the change of name, saying that it would from now on be the “Change to Win Federation”. Anna Burger, the chair of the coalition, told me that the name would simply be “Change to Win”. This really ought to be sorted out before the business cards are printed …
\nBut all of that is secondary. What really matters is the issue that divides Change to Win from the AFL-CIO and that issue is organizing.
\nTwo things came to mind while reading through the material and listening to the first speeches.
\nFirst, even though Change to Win will actually charge lower dues — only $0.25 per member per month — they will spend more (much more) on organizing than the AFL-CIO unions. The coalition (or federation) is committed to spending 75% of its income on organizing. According to one handout, which claimed Change to Win had 5.4 million members, it would be spending far more money in absolute terms than the much larger AFL-CIO. In fact, it was claimed that “the collective organizing expenditures of our affiliates and the federation at all levels will easily approach $750 million per year.” That’s a staggering sum, and if unions can’t pick up new members after spending $750 million a year, then we’re really in trouble.
\nSecond, the union seems to have an utterly different approach to politics than that of the AFL-CIO. Ask the AFL-CIO what they want to achieve in politics and you get a long shopping list, including stopping free trade agreements, fighting to defend social security and pensions, health care, and so on. But Change to Win has one and only one concern. “The new federation’s role in politics will be centered on growing the American labor movement,” they say.
\nAnd this goes to the very core of the thinking behind the new federation.
\nHere’s the basic idea, as I understand it. If unions represent around 8% of the private sector workforce today, that means that their ability to influence legislation, elections, and so on is severely limited. With such a tiny percentage of the workforce unionized, unions barely exist. So the question is not what unions shall do, but a more existential one — shall there be unions at all?
\nChange to Win is starting from the assumption that the very survival of the trade union movement is at stake. What is needed is not to decide on a agenda for unions, but to actually create those unions to begin with.
\nWithout a strong trade union membership, nothing else can be done.
\nNow, I can see the arguments on both sides of this question. I mean, it is certainly important to defeat Bush’s social security agenda, for example. And it is probably important for unions to back Democratic politicians who would promise to do that. But the days when powerful unions could decide elections seem long gone. And Change to Win’s argument does seem to make sense: first, build the unions. Then, everything else.
\nToday begins the formal convention, which lasts for only one day. Blogger Jonathan Tasini has already pointed out that this too is remarkable — unions traditionally hold week-long affairs in resort towns like Las Vegas. (St. Louis, for all its charm, is not Las Vegas.)
\nToday will focus on organizing campaigns, including the Houston janitors, Advance Demolition, Cintas, school bus drivers, Smithfield Foods, DHL and hotels. It will be addressed by all the key leaders of the coalition, including Jim Hoffa, Andy Stern, and Bruce Raynor. Eight hours after it begins, it will all be over. Delegates will head back to their homes and the real work will begin.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Yesterday, Monday, 26 September 2005, marked a turning point in the history of the trade union movement in the United States. Or it didn’t. It all depends on who you talk to.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-127","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-change-to-win-founding-convention"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ericlee.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ericlee.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ericlee.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ericlee.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ericlee.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=127"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.ericlee.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ericlee.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ericlee.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ericlee.info\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}