UFCW Decides to Bolt the AFL-CIO

[obnoxiousdrunk]

WASHINGTON - The United Food and Commercial Workers, with almost 1.4 million members, will join the Teamsters and the service workers in bolting the AFL-CIO, union leaders said Friday.


The departure of the UFCW from the labor federation means the AFL-CIO is losing at least three of it biggest unions, with more than 4 million of its 13 million members and almost $28 million of an estimated $120 million budget.

"The world has changed and workers' rights and living standards are under attack. Tradition and past success are not sufficient to meet the new challenges," UFCW President Joe Hansen said in a letter delivered to federation President John Sweeney.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050729/ap_on_bi_ge/labor_rift

[napi21]

1. Maybe this will make things better for the food and commercial

workers. At least they will have people fighting for them only!

[kevsand]

2. I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I have to wonder if your comment isn't based on some kind of misconception. Please explain...

[Shakespeare]

3. I'm not sure what YOU mean by that.

What kind of misconception? What, exactly, is unclear about the person's post?

[kevsand]

10. See below. /nt

[Shakespeare]

11. I think you misunderstand what the poster is saying.

Yes, I understand that the UFCW is its own entity apart from (though, in many ways, a subset of) the AFL-CIO.

What the split proposes to do, as I'm sure you're aware, is focus efforts on grassroots labor organization on a large/national scale, rather than just the political action the AFL-CIO is primarily focused on. So yes, in that regard, the new CWC will be working more at helping UFCW than it will for strictly political ends.

This split is painful, but good in the long run. I see it more as a fit of growing pains than I do as any real crisis of division. This movement was led by SEIU, which has been exponentially more active (and more successful) in organizing over the last few years than pretty much any other union. We need labor to work on both fronts, and I have no problem with SEIU leading the charge to re-energize organizing efforts. When one looks at the statistics on union membership now as opposed to 30 years ago, we're really in pretty dire straits--and that goes for the non-union worker as well as the union worker. With a little education, more non-union workers will, I hope, be made aware of this fact.

[kevsand]

13. It was my fear that I had misunderstood

that prompted me to ask for clarification. napi21 seemed to be implying that the split would somehow now allow UFCW to focus on its own members, rather than on the interests of other unions. This seemed to be reinforced by her response in #5. In fact, UFCW (and every international) already does that, split or no.

If that was her point, it seemed to me to be based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between internationals and federations. If that wasn't her point, then I remain open to the possibility that I am the one who has misunderstood, although I am still suspicious of any argument that suggests that solidarity is a distraction rather than an asset.

I am in essential agreement with you that the publicly stated reasons for the split are the differences in emphasis regarding organizing vs. political action. The underlying reasons appear to be more indicative of the personalities involved, and their personal conflicts. It seems to me to be more about control than ideology.

I say that in part because I have studied the proposals from both camps, and they are surprisingly similar in spirit, differing mainly in matters of arbitrary degree rather than substance. The only significant difference I can see is an apparent desire by SEIU to decrease democratic input from the grassroots levels, in favor of a more centralized, top down model of control, which I find disturbing,

I am also alarmed by reports that some of SEIU's increase in membership may have come directly from raids on other internationals' members. I have not been able to quantify this, but to the extent that it may be true, it would not be a net gain, it would not even be desireable, nor would it be evidence of any new proclivity for organizing.

I completely agree that labor should continue to work on both fronts. They are not mutually exclusive, and are in fact mutually reinforcing. We need legislative change to make it easier for workers to organize, and we need organizing to increase our numbers for greater political clout. It should not be necessary to split in order to continue working on both.

As a former member (and officer) of both UFCW and UNITE, I find it significant that the rank and file members were never asked to vote on the split. My greatest hope is that the membership gets fed up enough to throw out both Sweeney and Stern, as I think both of them are counterproductive at this point.

There are a couple of threads you may find interesting:

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

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

[napi21]

5. Well, it seems to me that if you had a large group of Union

workers who were all in the same or similar business, they would concentrate their fight to better the lives of THEIR workers. When all unions are under one umbrella as they were in the AFL/CIO the efforts are diluted amoung many different interests.

That's not a slam to anyone or any group, but it just makes sense.

[kevsand]

9. I think that there is a partial misconception here regarding how

unions operate. The AFL-CIO is not a union. It is a federation of unions, working together on areas of common interest. The individual unions (like UFCW) that belong to this federation are independent, virtually autonomous entities. There are very few restrictions placed on them by this affiliation, and mostly involve prohibitions against trying to steal other unions' members.

The officers and staff and members of the UFCW have always been charged with working exclusively for their own members' best interest. The officers and staff of the AFL-CIO are devoted exclusively to common causes. These are two completely separate groups of people, working for two completely separate entities.

Separation from the AFL-CIO should not, in most cases, change the priorities of anyone already working for the UFCW. The only significant difference in this respect will be that the UFCW will no longer be paying any per capita dues to the AFL-CIO.

There are, of course, a number of other issues at work here, and a number of behind the scenes factors that the media hasn't reported very well. There are a number of threads here at DU that address those, but I wanted to make clear what exactly it was that you seemed to be saying.

Please don't be offended, but I am curious: are you a union member?

[Clovis Sangrail]

4. I doubt it

the problem with UFCW is UFCW, not the AFLCIO.

After the socal supermarket strike I have zero respect for that union.
(the union, not the members)
The supermarkets decided they could take the hit from a strike in just socal and they were right.
They waited out the strikers and essentially won.


The entire point of a union is to use the collective power of ALL of the workers to ensure that ALL of the workers are treated fairly.
UFCW should have called a nationwide strike against all of the stores involved.

Trying to pressure a chain with 2000 stores by picketing 50 of them is assisnine.

[napi21]

6. That's absolutely right! I never heard why all the locals didn't

call for a strike at each one of that supermarket's locations.

That's why I think it will be better if the UFCW is it's own separate Union. I guess my biggest question is, will they have enough $$? Their wages have to be lower than a lot of the other unionized businesses. Will their workers be able to afford the dues???

[Clovis Sangrail]

7. they're broken up

into locals and districts.
UFCW supermarket workers in Chicago negotiate their contract with Safeway, Albertsons, etc. independently from UFCW workers in, say, Los Angeles.
So... when LA goes on strike, Chicago doesn't (and probably can't legally)

The employers have evolved into major national corporations with stores all over the country;
the union is still operating as if the employers are only locally based.

good for the corporations
bad for the workers

I think the socal strike was a good example of how in a stuggle with massive nationwide corporation a local-area-only strike is ineffective.

That's why I said that UFCW's problem is UFCW...
they've allowed themselves (and their power) to fragmented by signing a different contract in every city.

[napi21]

8. Can they correct that? If they are going to be unto themselves,

maybe they can work a way to get some kind of national agreement!

I must tell you, I used to hate unions, back when my husband worked for one. UEW I think. They did some very, very stupid things, like a wildcat strike when ONE worker was going to be docked for arriving late on a day it snowed, even though everyone else got to work on time!

But I have become much more supportive after watching what so many copanies are doing to exploit their workers!

I sure hope they can become successful again!

[Clovis Sangrail]

14. I really hope they can

if they don't figure this out I think they're destined for the history books.

I'm from a union family and have always been pro-union, but I loath the union brass beaurocrats.

I personally feel the only people who should be allowed to be union brass are people who have put 20+ years in as union members.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Unions try to avoid strikes

They almost always cost them members. I learned that in a labor studies class I took.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

15. Strikes Me as Frustration and a bad move.....

The point of the union is the more in it the stronger it is.

[Moderator]

16. kick

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT: Third Union Is Leaving A.F.L.-C.I.O.

Third Union Is Leaving A.F.L.-C.I.O.
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: July 30, 2005


The United Food and Commercial Workers, one of the nation's five largest labor unions, quit the A.F.L.-C.I.O. yesterday, becoming the third big union to leave the nation's main federation this week.

Joe Hansen, president of the union, which has 1.3 million members, said his union was committing itself to a new coalition that includes the two other unions that pulled out, the Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union....

***

The Food and Commercial Workers is the main union representing supermarket workers, meat-packing workers and poultry-processing workers.

Members of the new group say the A.F.L.-C.I.O., now down to 53 unions, has not moved aggressively to stop the decline of organized labor. The insurgents, the Change to Win Coalition, intend to foster a resurgence.

The coalition also includes three unions that remain in the federation - the United Farm Workers, the Laborers' International Union of North America and Unite Here, which represents apparel, hotel and restaurant workers - and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, which left in 2001....


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/30/national/30union.html

[WI_DEM]

17. Service employees is one of the most liberal unionss

but isn't the Teamsters one of the more conservative unions--they endorsed Reagan twice and Bush I once--I wonder how this new alliance will work out?

[cosmik debris]

23. Don't forget Nixon

Jimmy Hoffa endorsed Nixon in the middle of the Watergate scandal.In my opinion, the Teamsters are no friends of organized labor. They are for the Teamsters ONLY. They have never passed up an opportunity to undercut the AFL-CIO. They have always endorsed anti-labor candidates. I believe the reason the joined SEIU in the defection is to further hurt the organized labor movement the way they have done for 35 years.

[Skinner]

18. I feel like this story has been largely ignored on DU.

But I am really curious how people feel about all these big unions leaving the AFL-CIO. I gotta agree that something needs to be done to kick-start the labor movement again. I hope that this will help, but I really don't know what to think.

[barbaraann]

19. Mark Shields yesterday said it was bad for the Dems.

He said that after the separation, under the law, the breakaway unions wouldn't be able to coordinate work on campaigns with each other.

I usually agree with Mark Shields but I don't agree on this. I think that the breakaway unions will do a better job of fighting for labor because they seem more motivated and also because they will just be smaller and more nimble and hopefully less ossified.

Here's the official info: http://www.changetowin.org/

[annabanana]

21. Shields is missing the point..

and I don't hink he recognizes the energy involved on the seperatist's side.(we need some GOOD language management here.."change to win" isn't the name of an organization)

[annabanana]

20. By and large, DU isn't exaclty chock full of union dems....

That's probably why there isn't a lot more discussion here. It is an important development though. I think, within the unions themselves, there is a growing recognition that the B*sh agenda is fiercely anti-union, and that the wedge issues are being used to divide and conquer...

[Sgent]

22. In the short term

this will be bad for the Dems -- as the CFW (Coalition for Change) has already said they intend to significantly limit political activities.

That being said, they are putting A LOT of money into organizing, and are doing it using relatively new methods that have proved successful for the SEIU. Long term, a revitalization of the union movement is better for the dems.

There have been a bunch of people concerned about infigting and raiding. Personally, I think it could be a problem, but I also think some competition might be good. Sweeny getting re-elected for another four years was the last straw for me. Put a proven failure into office again, after he just suffered an embarassing defeat.

The last item is that the SEIU/Teamester were pushing smaller unions to consolidate to remove a lot of overhead. They also support a regional or industry wide unionization movement. For instance, SEIU unionized most of the Janitors in NYC at once, meaning that it was much harder to defeat. UNITE-HERE focused on organizing nurses in San Diego, and got 50% of all hospitals in their first go around, again providing much better leverage.

[bribri16]

24. Divide and conquer. that' the name of the game! n/t