Printer-Friendly Page
Follow APWU |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
|||||
Debate Continues Over Restructuring the AFL-CIO
Burrus Update #5-05, March 30, 2005
As I explained in a previous update, there has been considerable debate within the AFL-CIO and in the media in recent months about the future of the labor movement. Discussions have focused on the direction of the labor movement, whether the labor federation needs to undergo major reform, and what kind of restructuring may be necessary. These topics have been the subject of many formal and informal discussions among the nation’s union leaders, in response to the many changes that have occurred in our society, and their impact on the labor movement.
Many international unions, including the APWU, have submitted written analyses of the shortcomings of the current structure, and have made recommendations for change. These submissions can be viewed on the AFL-CIO Web site, at www.aflcio.org/aboutaflcio/ourfuture.
Change to the AFL-CIO’s structure can be accomplished through the actions of its various governing bodies:
As a member of each of these bodies, I voice the opinion of the APWU on the issues under consideration. At the beginning of this process I cautioned that a public presentation of views on the shortcomings of organized labor and recommendations for change would ill serve the process of developing a consensus. The public presentation of positions could harden the position of AFL-CIO members and make it more difficult to reach agreement. Discussion within the labor movement was necessary and healthy, I said, but the debate should be conducted in private, with the goal of reaching consensus.
My views did not prevail on this subject, however, and dozens of international unions, constituency groups, and central labor councils have publicly expressed their views on the debate. Several of the presidents have held press conferences and discussed the disagreements in the mainstream media.
Many Proposals
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) initiated the debate over the future of the labor movement during a press interview prior to the November 2004 presidential election, when SEIU President Andrew Stern offered the opinion that the labor movement might be better off if Bush won. The rationale was that a Kerry victory might obscure faults within the AFL-CIO structure.
Shortly thereafter, SEIU outlined recommendations for reorganizing the AFL-CIO. The recommendations included reducing the number of unions in the AFL-CIO and forcing mergers between unions with members in the same sector of the economy. An example would be what is known as the communications sector, where many unions presently represent workers. The four postal unions, including APWU, would be forced to merge not only with each other, but with the Communications Workers of America and other unions active in the communications sector. This would include unions that represent newspaper writers, television broadcasters, and telephone repair workers.
SEIU’s proposal to reduce the number of unions was rejected out of hand by many unions, which opposed forced mergers. Other changes advanced by SEIU would have required the AFL-CIO to spend the bulk of its resources on organizing non-unionized workers, and would have mandated a major restructuring of the organization itself.
Many of the recommendations offered by other unions suggested that organizing a union at WalMart was a priority. In my opinion, organizing WalMart would be a major achievement, but it would not move the labor movement much closer to political victory. WalMart employs approximately 1.5 million workers, compared to the 12.5 million represented by the AFL-CIO. So, even if we were successful in organizing a union at WalMart, and doubled the total number of workers represented by organized labor through other organizing efforts – a daunting task – only 24 percent of the nation’s workforce would be unionized: 76 percent of America’s workers would continue to be non-represented, and 35 percent of unionized workers vote based on their emotions instead of their long-term economic interests.
Among the many other proposals was a recommendation by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to rebate up to 50 percent of the dues paid to the AFL-CIO by its affiliates to assist in union organizing programs. This proposal was accompanied by other proposals to reorganize.
Votes Taken
At the March 2005 Executive Committee meeting, members considered various proposals; their recommendations will be considered by the Executive Council and at the AFL-CIO convention in June. Members were presented with the Teamsters’ proposal and rejected it by a vote of 15 to 7. Instead, the committee endorsed a proposal offered by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney to devote 50 percent of AFL-CIO resources to invigorating the organization’s political programs, and 15 percent of its resources to organizing efforts. I voted with the majority on both proposals.
As expressed in the APWU’s position paper, I am convinced that changing public policy offers the only real solutions for working people and the most disenfranchised among us. Public policy determines labor law, social laws, foreign policy, and budget allocation, influencing every aspect of American life. Political action is the only peaceful means to influence public policy, so I support focusing the efforts of the AFL-CIO on forming strategies and coalitions to achieve victory in the political arena. This includes local, county, state, and national politics.
The disagreement within the labor movement is whether the focus should be on politics, organizing, or internal structure. I believe that organizing and internal structure are merely a means to achieving political influence in order to affect public policy. I have favored increasing the level of AFL-CIO resources dedicated to politics up to as much as 80 percent, which would reduce the resources available for other programs, including organizing.
This view has created a firestorm among the AFL-CIO’s 42 departments, each of which advocates the virtues of its activities. If 80 percent of the resources were dedicated to politics, only the remaining 20 percent would be available to spend on the AFL-CIO’s other activities: This would obviously require the elimination of many departments and the reduction in the budgets of others.
I have disagreed with those proposals which would weaken the AFL-CIO by diverting resources to international unions. I am not convinced that the union movement can be strengthened by weakening the institution that binds us together.
Prior to the March meeting, the Service Employees International Union adopted a resolution approving disaffiliation from the AFL-CIO unless acceptable changes are made to its structure. SEIU, the Teamsters, UNITE-HERE, LIUNA and the Carpenters union (which is not presently affiliated with the AFL-CIO), have formed a coalition to advocate their views, but to date only SEIU has publicly announced an intention to disaffiliate.
The Executive Committee is scheduled to meet again on June 9 and June 17, with the Executive Council meeting on June 20. The AFL-CIO convention will begin July 25. Restructuring will be the primary issue under discussion. As a member of each of the assemblies I will participate in the debate and advocate the APWU’s views on this most important subject.
William Burrus
President
