When the Union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run
There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun
For what power on earth is weaker than the feeble force of one
It's the union makes us strong
-- lyric from Solidarity Forever
How many workers feel the union's inspiration running through their blood today? How many union members feel it?
More below.
I read the New York Times coverage of the SEIU and Teamsters pulling out of the AFL-CIO and was appalled. The remarks from the AFL-CIO / Sweeney camp were all about insinuating that those leaving the federation were traitors, that "solidarity" is all that matters.
Does this remind you of the talking points of anyone else? (Hint: think flight suits and fixed intelligence.)
There is not a word in the article about substantive differences. This is partly the fault of the reporters, but smearing people as traitors for honest disagreement has been a hallmark of the collapse of the labor movement. God forbid you have a substantive debate in public.
Sweeney et al are all about repeating the last line of the stanza above. "It's the union makes us strong, and we are the union." Except 1) unions hardly make anyone strong anymore (port-workers excepted), and 2) the current AFL-CIO leadership have a lot of gall to imply that they alone can speak for "labor." The current leadership is so ossified and hamstrung by their backroom deals and the backstabbing culture that permeates the upper reaches of the labor movement (or lower depths, depending on how you look at it) that they can barely imagine the prospect of the first line of the stanza above - the union's inspiration mobilizing people.
For those worried about this schism, I would ask a simple question: what is the value of the AFL-CIO? What does it do? The people who work there couldn't answer these questions in a useful sentence, though they could give you paragraphs of empty rhetoric about "representing working families." And, hey, they do issue press releases that are on the correct side of almost every admirable, losing, social cause. (There are also many quiet victories on behalf of pork-barrel projects, where labor lobbyists happily play junior partners to huge corporations and right-wing hacks.) The AFL-CIO certainly does not play the roles you would expect, or would want it to. It plays no roles well. Almost all the real power is in the unions, themselves, not in the federation.
That was all supposed to change when Kirkland was ousted 10 years ago, and new blood was going to transform the AFL-CIO into an engine of labor's renewal. After a decade of further shellacking, however, there is no tangible evidence of success.
To be charitable, I'm not sure the abject failure of the Sweeney Revolution is the fault of the AFL-CIO leadership. The AFL-CIO may well be unfixable. The "House of Labor" has long been divided along two dozen fault lines. This is understandable, and the legitimate differences in interests and priorities among different unions pose an interesting and important set of problems that are worth attacking and resolving. Struggling to find a common, effective voice is understandably and forgivably difficult.
But the culture of the AFL-CIO is not one of struggling together to achieve higher ends. Instead a culture of blood feuds, petty rivalries, secrecy and sycophancy pervades the place. Within the institution, too few speak their minds, and few that do survive long. Resources are wasted, good people are demoralized, and - most importantly - there is no accountability for setting priorities, laying out action plans, and actually executing.
Stern's critique of the AFL-CIO is dead on. The institution itself is probably beyond saving. In tearing it down, nothing would really be lost - though, to be sure, the departure of the IBT, SEIU, and UFCW will not tear it down. If anything, the forces of inertia will grow stronger, minus these voices, and the Federation will do what it is currently doing (what was that again? Oh yes - "representing working families") with even less debate.
I twice was in meetings with Andy Stern (and many others). He did a lot of talking. I frankly thought he was kind of a jerk. But he was also clearly that rare guy who made it to the top of the labor movement without having the fire crushed out of him. He was clearly intelligent, focused (this is the Stern attribute that really constitutes the proverbial "fingernails on the chalkboard" to the Sweeneyites), and committed to his cause. He is not someone you could credibly label as a traitor to the labor movement or working people.
Unless you had nothing else to say to defend yourself.
