Push to Unite Unions in a Single House of Labor

This is big news:

The presidents of 12 of the nation’s largest labor unions called Wednesday for reuniting the American labor movement, which split apart three and a half years ago when seven unions left the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and formed a rival federation.

The union presidents issued their joint call after the transition team for President-elect Barack Obama signaled that it would prefer dealing with a united movement, rather than a fractured one that often had two competing voices.

David E. Bonior, a member of Mr. Obama’s economic transition team who withdrew from consideration as labor secretary, helped arrange and oversee a meeting of the union presidents on Wednesday in Washington.

In the 1930's and 1940's there was a fruitful competition between the American Federation of Labor, whose affiliate unions didn't want to organize industrial workers and clung to older notions of craft unionism, and the much more militant Congress of Industrial Organizations.  After the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, the upstart unions of the CIO led the massive unionization drives that organized millions of industrial workers from the auto, steel, mining, textile and rubber industries.

The AFL and the CIO unified in 1955, and some historians and unionists attribute the decline of organized labor to that merger.  Certainly labor became ossified, and largely abandoned organizing through the 60's, 70's and 80's.  But even in the 90's, when insurgents in some unions and wise leaders in others looked to grow their unions, they were confronted with the difficulties of organizing through standard NLRB elections, an entire industry of anti-union consultants who specialize in thwarting unionizing, the deindustrialization of much of the country, the movement of much manufacturing to the anti-union Southern states or even overseas, and the openly hostile post-Nixon GOP and its backers in the radical right.  Indeed, much of the radical right, while generally reviled among most liberals for exploiting divisive social issues, was originally motivated by deep antipathy toward unions, bordering on frothy-mouthed red-baiting.  

The biggest difference, however, between the heyday of AFL and CIO competition and today, is the lasting effect of the passage, in 1948 (over Truman's veto) of the Taft-Hartley amendments to the National Labor Relations Act.  It was only a few years after Taft-Hartley profoundly weakened workers' ability to organize themselves in a union for collective bargaining that the percentage of workers represented by unions—about 35% in 1954, mostly workers in the private sector—began its steady decline to the roughly 12% today (with maybe only 7% in the private sector).  

In order to turn that around—and restoring the American labor movement is an essential component restoring the health of the American middle class—we need Congress to pass and Obama to sign the Employee Free Choice Act.  

Thus, labor—and middle class families across America—need action from the Congressional Democrats and President Obama.  But the Democrats, especially Obama, also need support from a strong labor movement.  No entity does more to educate voters on policy and politics, brings more organizational expertise and power to campaigns, or does more to deliver votes than the labor movement.  For Obama and the Democrats to be successful over the long run, they need a powerful labor movement.

Ostensibly, the split in 2005 was over disagreements in strategy and emphasis in organizing new workers.  But the reality is that a federation has little power over individual unions to force them to adopt methods or set priorities around organizing.  According to the NYT article, "There was general agreement that any future federation should focus on political and legislative matters, while also serving to encourage individual unions to do more to organize workers."  (Emphasis added)  Note the language: emphasis on coordinating on politics and legislation, but encouragement rather than coordination or coercion on matters of organizing.  

Since 2005, on a national level the unions that split from the AFL-CIO have operated under the banner of the Change to Win federation.  The reality, however, is that politics outside of DC, in states and metro areas, were typically conducted with the AFL-CIO unions and the Change to Win unions all working cooperatively, coordinating when possible on endorsements and electioneering activities on behalf of endorsed candidates.  

The NYT article describes many of the vexing issues that could scuttle this effort.  There isn't agreement on the form of single federation; will the unions that left the AFL-CIO in 2005—The Service Employees International Union, the Teamsters, the United Food and Commercial Workers and a handful of others—come back to the AFL-CIO, or will they  form a new federation?  What will happen with current AFL-CIO president John Sweeney?  Will he be succeeded by current Secretary Treasurer Rich Trumka?  Will there be a single president or possibly a revolving presidency that goes to the head of an affiliated union?

Passing the Employee Free Choice Act is but one major agenda item the Obama team has before them.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan will be the first challenge, to be followed by attempts at reform of business and financial regulation and creation of a national health care plan.  Garnering public support, and building pressure on obstructionist members of Congress--of either party—will be very difficult without a strong, coordinated effort by all of organized labor.  Thus, it's in everyone's best interests to hope for a successful reunification of the nation's major labor unions.  (Even the National Education Association, which has never been part of the AFL-CIO, was involved in Wednesday's meeting.)  

Congratulations to former Democratic whip David Bonior for nurturing this effort, and thanks to the leaders of the major labor unions for acting in accordance with one of the fundamental principles of unionists everywhere: solidarity.