Tuesday, July 26, 2005

AFL-CIO Split Puts Labor's Path in Doubt

Found this off the Los Angeles Times:

CHICAGO — Two of the nation's largest unions Monday officially bolted from the AFL-CIO, deepening a rift over the future of the struggling U.S. labor movement while raising questions about labor's support of the Democratic Party.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union, which together make up about one-fourth of the AFL-CIO's 13 million members, said they were leaving the federation because of fundamental differences over organizing tactics and political activities.

The largest rift in organized labor in nearly 70 years was seen as a troubling, though expected, development by many in organized labor, and was blasted by AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney as "a grievous insult." The defections mean that the 50-year-old federation has lost two of its largest groups, which contribute about one-sixth of its total annual budget.

Two other prominent unions also are considering leaving the federation. Combined with the Teamsters and SEIU, their departure would result in the loss of nearly a third of the AFL-CIO's members.

The federation, the dissenting unions said, spends too much time and money on political activities, and not enough on getting workers to join unions. The service employees union has pointed to its successes in courting and organizing low-wage immigrant workers, who are a major segment of the workforce in California.

In recent weeks, the Teamsters, SEIU and five other unions have joined forces in the Change to Win coalition, which officials said was aimed at restoring power to the labor movement.

The SEIU has 1.8 million members and the Teamsters have 1.3 million, making them two of the three largest unions in the AFL-CIO. Teamsters President James P. Hoffa and SEIU President Andrew L. Stern said their unions planned to set aside an estimated $10 million to help the coalition recruit new union members.

"This was not done lightly," Hoffa said at a news conference. "We must have more union members in order to change the political climate that is undermining workers' rights in this country. The AFL-CIO has chosen the opposite approach."

The news came on the first day of the federation's annual labor convention here, where some of the American labor movement's most epic battles have been fought.

But most of the buzz leading up to the convention has revolved around the growing frustration over slumping membership.

Unions now represent about 12% of all workers, and less than 8% of those in the private sector. Fifty years ago, organized labor made up more than one-third of the workforce.


The unions have a major problem. For the last 30 years, their membership rolls have been dropping, almost in conjunction with the structural shifting of the U.S. economy from a manufacturing-based economy to a services-based economy. And now the U.S. economy is shifting from a services-based economy towards something new. The AFL-CIO has been unable to adapt to these changes. What does AFL-CIO President Sweeney do? Give more money as political contributions to the Democratic Party, while his union membership is declining? This is not your father's manufacturing union. The unions have got to start courting the service workers--retail, hospitality, garment, security, tourism, nursing, agricultural. These are areas where the work is low paid, low benefits, using lower-skilled and lower educated workers. But the unions should also target higher-skilled workforces, such as computers and software programming, engineering workers, architecture, and communications. The U.S. economy is shifting towards a high-tech, highly educated workforce who will also have issues that are both different and similar to lower-skilled workforce. These are issues such as health care, retirement, day care, and even ownership of the companies through stock purchase programs. The unions have got to court these workers, explaining the benefits that workers can have in organizing and in negotiating with corporate management on issues that concern them.

Perhaps this union shake-up is necessary as a wake-up call for the unions to start developing new innovative policies and programs to change and adapt to the new U.S. economy.

No comments: