Largest Union Decides to Bolt AFL-CIO

[WhiteTara]

snip
The Service Employees International Union, with 1.8 million members, plans to announce Monday that it is leaving the AFL-CIO, said several labor officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the developments.

The Teamsters union was likely to disaffiliate at the same news conference, they said. Two other boycotting unions signaled similar intentions: United Food and Commercial Workers and UNITE HERE, a group of textile and hotel workers.

"Our differences are so fundamental and so principled that at this point I don't think there is a chance there will be a change of course," said UFCW President Joe Hansen.

snip
Gerald McEntee, president of a government employees' union with more than 1 million members, accused his boycotting colleagues of aiding labor's political foes. "The only people who happy about this are
President Bush and his crowd," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050725/ap_on_bi_ge/
labor_rift

looks like next week will be very interesting in the markets over this.

[Chicago Democrat]

1. HORRIBLE! Disaster.....

I'm depressed...

[WhiteTara]

5. that was my feeling about this also.

[murdoch]

36. WONDERFUL! Miracle...

The AFL was a rotten organization from day one. Even the Knights of Labor before it was bad. It was bad for American workers, and it teamed up with horrible businessmen to wreck labor worldwide. Good riddance. America has had plenty of good federations - the Knights of Labor, the IWW, the CIO, to get weepy about this rotten one.

A century ago the IWW ( http://www.iww.org ) was formed. It has been moribund for a long time, and who knows if it will ever revive. But the ideas it had are something that must be revived - organizing by industry, not trade. One big union - no jurisdictional junk over whether the Teamsters or UNITE fiefdoms get to organize this or that group.

The AFL was a monstrosity foisted upon the labor movement, good riddance to it.

[TomClash]

2. Andy Stern should head the AFL-CIO

and John Sweeney knows it.

[IndianaDemocrat]

8. The Same Thing Could VERY WELL Happen To US In The Near Future

IF we don't get our act together, soon....

[Zorra]

11. Isn't Stern the guy that gave $500,000 to republicans and wanted John

Kerry to lose the election?

But Stern's infatuation with whatever he thinks is new and innovating can also appear reckless and uninformed. And his apparent difficulty with being a team player in the ranks of labor and the Democratic party has led him to say some strange things and make some questionable alliances. During the Democratic convention Stern told David Broder of the Washington Post Washington Post that organized labor and the Democratic party would both probably be better served by a Kerry defeat. Last Summer SEIU gave more than $500,000 to the Republican Governor's Association. He lauds the DLC, and told me that SEIU is a member. And he's talked of his admiration for Stephen Moore and the Club for Growth, the doctrinaire free-marketers who've spent millions in Republican primaries sniping at moderate Republicans on behalf of right wing candidates, almost all of whom have either failed to unseat the incumbent Republican or who've lost to a Democrat in the general election.

http://racerx.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/3/2/155843/7904

[TomClash]

16. I'm sorry but this is

pure, unadulterated nonsense. He spent a lot of time at the Convention bashing Republicans and Bush, even setting up a mock Boston Tea Party against "King George" near the harbor.

I'd give money to Republican Governors too if they gave back, which they often do. It got Dennis Rivera's 1199 members a sweet deal in New York from Pataki.

How many times have Dems pissed on the unions? Plenty - in recent years. Do I have to recite the failures?

[LiberalFighter]

35. Sweeney should retire/resign!!!

I don't understand why the voting members want him in.

He is a relic of the past and has brought little fruit the AFL-CIO and their member unions.

[quaoar]

3. Teamsters to bolt also

APNewsAlert
WASHINGTON (AP) — Labor officials say Teamsters will join SEIU in bolting AFL-CIO on Monday.

[Toots]

34. Screw the Teamsters

They are the Zell Millers of the Unions. They used Scab labor to build their new Union Hall in Houston Tx in the ninties. How Union is that?

[Freddie Stubbs]

37. Do you have any links to back that up?

If so, it certainly is a shocking story.

[Toots]

39. Here is one place but try google

http://www.tdu.org/Convoy/Old_Convoy/Houston_nonunion/houston_nonunion.html

You’d think the members of Houston Teamster Local 988 would be proud of their new 16,246 square-foot union hall. Instead they are embarrassed that their local built the hall using all nonunion labor.  Local officials told construction union leaders that union contractors cost too much.

“I just can’t believe the cost issue outweighed the right thing to do,” said Dale Wortham, president of the Harris County AFL-CIO.

When the news hit the front page of the Houston Chronicle, Local 988 quickly became the disgrace of the Texas labor movement.

[Zorra]

4. "The only people who are happy about this are...Bush and his crowd"

Does his crowd include the DLC also?

[kestrel91316]

10. I wonder how much the RW PAID them to break up AFL-CIO???

[mike_c]

6. I blame this on Sweeny....

Andy Stern is right.

[The Political Eye]

9. Gotta agree... Sweeney and the Old Guard....

need to refocus on organizing. Change is good.

[TomClash]

17. You bet.

[carnie_sf]

7. I think it's ultimately a good thing

although it could hurt short term. We need a Labor movement that represents labor rather than appeasing corporate interests.

[IndianaDemocrat]

12. Ultimately A Good Thing.....

<<We need a Labor movement that represents labor rather than appeasing corporate interests.>>

Although they DO have other issues, a large part of this is the "Leadership" spending more on politicking than they do on organizing new membership...

[The Political Eye]

13. And recent spending has not won any big victories

[IndianaDemocrat]

14. I Keep Coming Back to The Same Old Point....

NOTHING Matters if we can't win elections. And the path we are on now isn't going to do it. We can have the rightousness of the saints, but if we can't convert that to a WIN, it's all for naught...

You have to WIN to get change, and you DON'T do that with Conspiracy Theories, irrational dissent, and calling Christians a "Hate-Group"...

It takes ORGANIZING and a MESSAGE that sells in the Marketplace of Free Ideas...

[TheWatcher]

15. Although you are absolutely correct on every point

There is that little matter of the voting machines and the four PRIVATE corprations that control the entire electronic voting infrastructure in this country.

You can't win elections if you don't have a FREE and FAIR voting system, no matter how organized and on message you are.

And until that issue is addressed, Elections in this country will be nothing more than the Dog And Pony Show that they are.

And as far as conspiracies, irrational dissent, and calling Christians a "Hate Group", I'd LOVE to hear where you are going with that one.

And with only 22 posts, you haven't been here long enough to have a "Same Old Point."

Interesting......

[brentspeak]

18. LIHOP?

The poster you're responding to is correct in his assessment - these boards are saturated to the brim with conspiracy theories and knee-jerk opinions on anything Christian-related. For the former, LIHOP/MIHOP conspiracy theories should suffice as an example. For the latter - everytime there's a LBN thread on some outrage occuring in Iran (say, the recent story about two men executed for suspicion of being gay) the result is a rash of responses like: "so what? if Christians had their way here, they'd be doing that too!", or "these Iranian extremists are no different than the American Christian Taliban!"

[Sgent]

19. This is tough

but its the right move to make. The four most dynamic unions have been hamstrung by there association with the AFL-CIO, who has generally added nothing but expenses to their effort.

You've got one president who has grown his Union by leaps and bounds -- unionizing entire industries in some cases. Another has continued to do the same thing that the unions have done for the last 30 years, and done nothing except protect his turf and benefits.

Its not an easy decision, but its a good one.

[dolstein]

20. Good for them

Whatever the AFL-CIO has been doing for the past thirty years or so hasn't been working. The percentage of the private sector workforce that has been unionized has steadily shrunk from around 33% at its peak to around 8% today. I have absolutely zero confidence in John Sweeney's ability to make the changes necessary to increase union membership. Yes, it's a shock to the system, but it's a necessary one. And it's hard to take seriously the arguments that this will only weaken labor, because it's pretty obvious that organized labor couldn't have any less political clout than it does now.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. 4 unions poised to bolt from AFL-CIO

Labor fracturing feared as groups boycott convention
By Thomas B. Edsall, Washington Post | July 25, 2005

CHICAGO -- Four major unions announced yesterday that they will boycott this week's AFL-CIO convention, and union officials said all four are likely to leave the AFL-CIO altogether, fracturing the federation that for 50 years has represented the US labor movement.

The four unions say the AFL-CIO leadership has failed to stem a steady decline in the percentage of workers represented by unions and believe AFL-CIO president John J. Sweeney should have retired to let new leaders take charge. The dissidents say they want to restore the labor movement to a position of power in the political system and the economy.

''Today we have reached a point where our differences have become irresolvable," said Anna Burger, a top official of the Service Employees International Union and chair of the insurgent Change to Win Coalition, at a combination rally and news conference.

Today, the SEIU plans to announce its formal withdrawal from the AFL-CIO. ''I don't see any change in course," said Andrew L. Stern, the SEIU president.

more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/07/25/4_unions_poised_to_bolt_from_afl_cio/

[nookiemonster]

22. The AFL-CIO is nothing but a corporate entity now.

Being a union person myself (Local 1, IBEW), I am very dissapointed that they have become Bush bootlickers also.

[kevsand]

26. They're guilty of a lot of things,

but supporting Bush isn't one of them. They worked like crazy for Kerry.

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. I'm sure that you can provide several examples

of the AFL-CIO being "Bush bootlickers." Right?

[nookiemonster]

28. No I can't.

I just feel that the unions may have some corruption. Corruption goes hand in hand with this administration.

I certainly didn't mean to offend, brother.

[Freddie Stubbs]

29. Every human institution has at least some corruption

Is there any evidence that any of the corruption of the AFL-CIO has been caused by, or helped by, the Bush administration?

[nookiemonster]

30. Agreed. Corruption is present in almost any human institution.

The corruption itself, in conjunction with the current administration's thirst for that, is what bothers me. I have no specific examples and I can't answer your question. I guess it's just opinion. I never stated it as fact. Yet.

[Gman]

23. When Sweeney/Trumka/Linda CT ran against Tom Donahue

and Barbara Easterling they hung this very same argument about Lane Kirkland around Donahue's neck because Donahue was too close to Kirkland. Interestingly, since Sweeney took office, his own union has revolted against him as they revolted against Kirkland/Donahue. The only surprise to me is that AFSCME hasn't joined this revolution. After all, both AFSCME and SEIU are known for their tendency to tear things down rather than build together.

[Tesha]

24. That's funny.

> After all, both AFSCME and SEIU are known for their tendency to tear things down rather than build together.

That's funny. One of the reasons the split is taking place is that SEIU
wants to spend more time and money on *INCREASING UNION MEMBERSHIP*
whil AFL/CIO wants to spend more money buying politicians in the hopes
of getting a few more laws passed that would treat big labor better.

Guess which one I think would be a better strategy in the long run?

Tesha

[kevsand]

25. We should do both.

Both sides are wrong here, and both sides are right. We need the political emphasis to create an environment that makes it easier for everyone to organize. Stern refuses to acknowledge that, and your misstatement of the political component speaks volumes.

I have studied the two "competing" proposals from the two camps over the last several months, and they are virtually identical in spirit, differing significantly only in three particulars:
1) an arbitrary question of what the budget threshold for organizing should be (Sweeney's too low 10% vs. Stern's arbitrary 30%),
2) the amount of dues that should be rebated for internationals that meet the threshold (Sweeney's arbitrary 25% vs. Stern's absurdly high 50%), and
3) Stern's proposals for an authoritarian, almost Stalinistic centralization of decision making power at the top, at the expense of democratic grassroots participation by the rank and file.

Sweeney has certainly failed us in regard to falling membership, and it is clear that someone else needs to step forward to re-energize labor's commitment to organizing. That someone should not be Stern. His willingness to fracture the unity of labor demonstrates his lack of commitment to working people everywhere, and proves that all he is really interested in is his own personal power, just like Sweeney.

A plague on both their houses, as they say. This is not a revolution, or even a turning point. This is two overwhelming egos pissing and moaning over a gradually shrinking power base, rather than working together to save the movement. The split will help no one, and will in fact make things worse for all by accelerating the overall decline in membership.

The only way out of this is for the rank and file to get off its ass and throw both of them out, so that we can all start working together for a change.

[Doremus]

31. This is the phoenix arising from the ashes of a long dead AFL-CIO

Organized labor needs a fresh infusion of new ideas and ways of doing things. Old school 'go along to get along' isn't the panacea the old guard would like us to think.

We're witnessing the first step in the rebirth of the US labor movement. Godspeed.

[Wabbajack]

32. What exactly are the reasons?

[RandomUser]

33. Politics vs. membership

This has been brewing for sometime. The old guard (mostly blue collar unions) hold many of the leadership positions. The new guard (service unions -- the ones pulling out now) have felt that their interest aren't always aligned with the manufacturing people. The manufacturing people are concerned about export/import, competition from cheap foreign goods. The service people are concerned with the fact that many new service sector jobs (such as IT and computer programmers) as well as menial jobs (like McDonald's or Walmart) are not unionized.

During the last primary, the two factions split on opposite sides. The blue-collar manufacturing people backed Gephardt and the service people (SEIU) backed Dean in Iowa. The two factions campaigned against each other, and every candidate was salivating for the much vaulted manpower and support of unions. Then it turned out that neither faction had any effect on the Iowa results, neither Gephardt nor Dean came out on top or even close to it in Iowa. The unions were mostly inconsequential to the results. Both factions of the union block, once a bastion of support for Democrats, had no ability to influence the Iowa results.

After being burned by their support of Dean in Iowa, and having Bush elected despite Union support of Kerry in the general election, the service people now want to get out of politics. They're accusing the old guard leadership of spending too much time with Washington lobbyists and campaign contributions to Democrats.

The service labor unions have watched as the percentage of unionized workers in the US workforce has shrunk, and their influence diminished, despite their stalwart support of the Democratic party. SEIU and those on their side ascribe this decline to the fact that they've been putting money into politics instead of into their own infrastructure. They feel they will continue to decline in influence and their membership will dwindle to nothing if they don't do something.

The service people want to shun politics and focus on growing their membership base. They want to pour money into expanding union membership, support the formation of new unions, etc -- instead of giving the money to political campaigns that end up getting them nothing in their eyes. They want to do outreach programs to nonunionized workers and get them to join unions, educate them on why unions are desireable, help people start up new unions in places where there aren't any, etc.

This move is necessary if the Labor movement is to be revitalized -- because they are slowly shrinking in membership. And without members, they have nothing. But it sucks for the Democratic party, because it means that we can't count on unions for support if they start to pull away from partisan politics in order to devote resources elsewhere.

[Robbien]

38. A union member has written two long posts in GD

Explaining exactly what is happening here and why this is very bad news.

Part 1
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4185521

Part 2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4194381