I am one of the people who organized a letter to Andy Stern, president of SEIU, urging him not to place the 140,000 member California UHW "local" into trusteeship. (The local is headed by Sal Roselli, who had been a central figure in SEIU, and resigned from a national position because of stated disagreements over the direction SEIU is taking.) The letter, signed by an invited group of over 100 people, including Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, as well as many of the leading labor researchers, was sent to Stern on May 1, and late in the afternoon of May 2 he sent a response. Then on Saturday May 3 the letter was run as a half-page ad in the New York Times, without informing any of the signers in advance. At that point national SEIU leaders became very unhappy, as did some of those who had signed the letter.
Today SEIU responded to the letter and NY Times advertisement with two letters, one from two Executive Vice Presidents, and one from 47 local leaders. One of the letters says in part "It is now clear that the [educators’] letter was moved by UHW and its allies as part of a pre-meditated strategy that was not revealed to all the educators who were asked to sign." The SEIU letter says that "we were extremely disappointed that, without any real inquiry or fact finding, you would take sides in our internal debate on the side of one of the participants without engaging in honest consultation with us."
As anyone in the labor movement knows, SEIU includes some terrific organizers, and SEIU’s response to the educator letter has been run like a first rate organizing campaign: powerful written communications, LOTS of one-on-one discussions with people the educators know and respect, and subtle and not so subtle pressures.
This is my attempt to clarify some of the issues involved from the perspective of one of the key people involved in organizing the initial educator letter. (I’m the person who was chosen to send the letter to Andy Stern, and to whom Stern sent his initial reply. Interestingly, SEIU has NOT sent me the second set of letters; I have no idea whether that is intentional or unintentional.)
NINE points I’d stress:
1. RESPECT FOR SEIU
I have enormous respect for SEIU, as do all or nearly all of those who signed the letter. My book, The Next Upsurge: Labor and the New Social Movements, prominently features, and highly praises, several SEIU campaigns. The initial group organizing the letter actively sought out precisely those who have been most involved with SEIU, and who would be most likely to have SEIU’s respect. (As in any semi-chaotic hasty organizing campaign, some of those who signed the letter then recruited others, and in doing so did not always keep to our initial aim.)
The aim was not an attack on SEIU, but to prevent the national SEIU from taking an action which we thought would be harmful to SEIU and the larger labor movement.
2. NOT TAKING SIDES
As one of the people who put a lot of time and energy into this, and who was present at the creation, I can unequivocally say that I was NOT taking sides against SEIU or for UHW. (Various labor movement friends have told me a variety of reasons why Sal Roselli is not a paragon with whom to identify.) I was taking a stand for democracy, not for UHW – and I don’t regret it for a moment.
3. INTERNAL UNION POLITICS
Many people in labor feel that no one outside the union should get involved in issues of internal union politics. The 100+ signers wrote to President Stern "Putting UHW under trusteeship would send a very troubling message and be viewed, by many, as a sign that internal democracy is not valued or tolerated within SEIU. In our view, this would have negative consequences for the workers directly affected, the SEIU itself, and the labor movement as a whole."
Suppose a union is racist, or sexist, or anti-immigrant. Should others in the labor movement be barred from speaking out on the issue or raising a concern? Similarly, if there are concerns about internal democracy, we can and should say so. Standing up for a principle and a goal is very different from endorsing a particular person.
4. AUDIENCE
It is one thing to write a letter and circulate it within labor circles; it is something significantly different to bring it to the attention of a wider world. Disputes that can be argued about within a family or small group look very different when shared with the wider world. For example, the letter was circulated on the listserv of labor educators (a group that combines union and academic members). No one wrote me to object to the letter being sent out by UALE over its listserv, so the issue is not that something was public, but rather HOW public it was, and public to whom.
As far as I know, none of those who signed the letter knew in advance that it would appear as an advertisement in the New York Times. I learned of the ad in an outraged email from someone I know in SEIU, and the appearance of the ad definitely changed SEIU’s reaction. One of the signers wrote me: "I was really taken aback by the ad's appearance. My first thought was that I had not been paying sufficient attention to your email. Now that I know an ad was never mentioned I am royally pissed off. I would NOT have signed a letter if I had known it was going to be in the NY Times. I have strong feelings about not airing our differences in such a public forum." At least two leading labor researchers have asked that their names be withdrawn and no longer associated with the letter.
Others feel that "If something is an open letter it is...open. That is, it is public." In their view, once the letter was public, and circulated through email, and available to the press had they been interested (none were), then it is public, and it makes no difference whether it appears on an obscure web site and is seen only by labor academics and union activists, or whether it appears as an ad in our nation’s most prestigious newspaper, read by the enemies of labor as well as by those within the broad house of labor.
5. ADVANCE NOTICE AND FAIR WARNING
As one of the organizers, had I known the letter might appear as an ad in the NY Times, I would definitely have so informed anyone I asked to sign, because that information might have influenced their decision, as it would have influenced my own (although, to tell the truth, I’m not quite sure how it would have influenced me). Many of those who signed the letter agonized about their decision to do so, wanting to send a message to SEIU but not wanting to do anything that could harm the union or its workers. In making this decision they undoubtedly weighed many factors, but thinking about the audience for which it was intended was one of them. I don’t think anyone signed believing the letter would go only to Andy Stern, but I also don’t think a single person envisioned it being a big ad in the New York Times.
I’ve been involved in a variety of labor disputes of one kind and another, but I’ve never been involved in one where people and groups on opposing sides both had deep pockets, both were prepared to commit major resources to the battle, and both were prepared to wage war in ways that I think are harmful to labor. Fair warning to others who enter the fray: Think in advance, as we did not, about how your actions might be used. That is NOT an admonition to stay away from the issues; it’s a statement that important principles are at stake, and all the parties involved are imperfect, and if you aren’t careful (and maybe even if you are) your actions can lead to unanticipated consequences.
6. MANIPULATED??
SEIU’s second round of letters says that the original educators letter "was moved by UHW and its allies as part of a pre-meditated strategy that was not revealed to all the educators who were asked to sign."
As one of the four central organizers, I think that’s almost completely wrong, but I also want to note the truth and the whole truth, in case others feel differently. The letter started when I put a blog post on Daily Kos and Open Left. One of the people who read that -- and whose own analysis of the issues significantly disagreed with my own – was Steve Early, a retired labor organizer who has been centrally involved in many of the key union reform battles of the last thirty-plus years. Steve picked up on a sentence in my blog post that said: "The trusteeship, if it comes, will send a message that no dissent will be tolerated in SEIU – and that would be a tragedy for the workers, for the labor movement, and (although the national leadership may not realize it) for SEIU itself."
Steve sent a message to perhaps twenty labor educators and activists, and said "If you believe that’s true, someone should circulate a letter asking SEIU not to trustee the UHW local." Several of the people who received the message immediately said they would sign such a statement, and that it should be circulated. Steve and I drafted and revised a message, and began circulating it. (From the beginning Steve said he should not sign, because he is a known critic of SEIU, and we all agreed we wanted signatures from those whom SEIU would respect.)
At the time I did not know, and have since learned (from Steve, who never hid it), that Steve’s daughter works for UHW. Had I known that from the beginning would it have changed my actions? I think the answer is: Not at all. (My political activity is neither constrained nor determined by the stances of my various relatives.) When the letter was complete, I assume that Steve communicated with UHW. I am reasonably sure that Steve did not know the letter would appear as an ad in the NY Times. Certainly the ad can’t have been planned long in advance, because we as organizers were surprised at the positive reception we received, the number and prominence of those who signed on. We would not have been surprised if only 20 people had signed the letter (believing that people had enormous respect for SEIU, and would be reluctant to be seen as opposing it), and as we went we exchanged frequent pleased messages about the surprising additions. Many of the names came in the last few days; a week earlier if UHW had looked at the list of signators they would have thought it pathetic, and certainly not material for a NY Times ad.
The "manipulated" theory only works if we assume that Steve Early, operating by himself, is able to dupe, motivate, and control all the rest of us, and to anticipate exactly how things will turn out. Unless we have a "devil in disguise" theory of organizing, this is implausible. (I should note that in the past, and recently, I’ve often been impressed with Steve, and often strongly opposed one or another stance he’s taken; from the beginning I knew that he and I were coming from different places.)
If the issue is being manipulated and used by UHW, then yes, I do feel ill used. I’m not sure if, once a letter is public, it is necessary to get the signers’ permission before using it, but as far as I know they made NO effort to communicate with ANY signer and did not ask how anyone would react to the letter appearing as an ad in the NY Times. If we had been given 48 hours notice, and had polled the letter signers, it would be a very different situation; I have no idea how many would have refused to have their names included.
7. SEIU’S RESPONSE
Here I would note the dramatic change in tone between SEIU’s first (pre-NY Times ad) and second responses. The first response was mild, reasonable, and invited further dialogue. The second response is much sharper, and has a totally different tone.
This indicates to me that SEIU, just like those of us who signed the letter, did not anticipate the way UHW would use the letter, or the visibility it would receive. SEIU, just like those of us who signed the letter, had no idea it would be run as an advertisement in the New York Times.
SEIU’s reaction is not about the letter itself, but rather about the way it has been used, by UHW and by those who support UHW. I myself object to the way UHW has framed the letter, and their attempts to make those who signed appear to be siding with UHW. (Indeed, one of the points on which UHW and SEIU agree seems to be that the signers are de facto agreeing with UHW. I totally disagree, and I think if those who signed the letter were polled probably 80%+ would disagree.)
8. OTHER ISSUES
People in SEIU (and not only them) have said to me: Why just this issue? The labor movement needs a much wider debate. There are real issues about what it means to represent only the interests of a smaller and smaller number of union members, and whether the progressive position is to focus only on what is best for them, or do we need a larger vision of how to enroll the 90% of workers who are not in unions.
I totally agree. That’s why I wrote The Next Upsurge: Labor and the New Social Movements. I’ve certainly engaged with a wide range of labor issues, in my own union and in work with others in labor, and I intend to continue to do so. This letter is not the end all and be all of my labor activity, and I think that is true for essentially everyone else who signed.
So yes, we should by all means have a debate on other issues. But I hope that we also agree that union democracy can’t wait until the other 90% of workers are in unions.
9. DO ACADEMICS AND INTELLECTUALS MATTER?
Our friends in the labor movement sometimes tell us we don’t. Much more often, we believe we don’t. This letter, and the response to it – both by UHW and by SEIU – shows that sometimes our views are important. They are important enough to justify the expense of a half-page ad in the NY Times; they are important enough to generate a letter signed by 47 local union leaders. That’s not a reason to withdraw, but rather an argument that we should engage.
Some years ago I was involved in an organization called SAWSJ (pronounced "sausage" – Scholars, Artists, and Writers for Social Justice), an attempt to connect intellectuals and the labor movement. Recent events show that we have a continuing need for such an organization, one that could help stimulate and provide a forum for dialogue on the issues of the day, and do so within a labor-friendly forum that was not simply a union forum.