Thoughts on Settling: A Union Armistice

I find it difficult to explain my job to people. There are two levels of confusion. The higher level of confusion is that of people who don't really know what North American unions do, either because they didn't grow up around them or they are from another country. The lower level of confusion is that of people who understand unions but don't understand my job, either from an union-hating perspective or an ally perspective. I admit it is not a job that a lot of people, even union staff, have. I'd say 500 people in the entire country, tops, have this kind of job.

I would describe myself as a strategic campaigner. I design and implement campaigns, develop strategy, do research, build industrial and political relationships, and even (most exciting of all) put data into spreadsheets. I don't negotiate contracts, or process dues, or organize workers myself. ("Huh?" Never mind, I'm a computer programmer. How about this weather we're having?)

But more confusing than my job has been the context in which I have been doing it for the past few years. Before 2008, I had never been part of a merger/acquistion, or a hostile takeover, or an open internecine battle of any kind. But one opened up right before my eyes, a harsh and emotional and difficult struggle. And, after much consideration, I took a side, risking personal and professional relationships that meant a lot to me. I took a side because I believed it was the right thing to do. I would do it again.

Still, it's hard to explain to people what actually happened. The short story is, the elected leader of our organization wanted to continue to run it, but he didn't have the votes to do it, so he took his staff and merged with another, bigger organization, asserting jurisdiction over the same industries that we had organized for years (as well as moving funds and other assets).

If we were talking about a company, these actions might have been seen as a betrayal, but entirely legitimate. It's sort of like (spoiler alert, slowpokes) the last season of Mad Men - people who consider themselves visionaries feel like they are losing control of their world, and they are losing it to people they do not like very much. Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce split off to compete for clients and market share. It felt exciting, adventurous, pioneering.

I think that is what some people who decided to leave might have felt. That this was a new energy, a manifest destiny of some sort.

The problems with this line of thinking are (perhaps among others):

1) We're talking about an organization that is accountable to people who serve food and clean toilets for a living, people who would rather see their dues money go towards servicing and organizing, not towards fighting over the right to represent them. These are people whose livelihoods - health insurance, wages, pensions - are directly affected by union decisions. They are not wealthy Lucky Strikes shareholders who have an extensive portfolio that can easily weather an advertising flub.

2) The sense of "competition" in trade unionism is not what it is in business. The movement is stronger when there is real organizing by jurisdiction - an "economy" of scale, an expertise in the industries, strength in numbers. Unlike in business, competition in the union world actually creates stagnation.

3) It was not really a pioneering move. An analogy would read as follows: the American colonies mustered an army to fight for independence from England, only to be colonized by Spain three days later and try to take over the colonies under the Spanish flag. There is no independence, just an opportunity to get away from and even do battle with England, and affiliate with a larger organization that has a history of brutally swallowing up its affiliates.

So I am mostly glad that there is now a settlement that, by and large, restores what's right. But I hope some lessons were learned all around. I know what I've learned.

1) Nothing beats fantastic organizing.
2) Some compromise is almost always inevitable, even when you know you are in the right.
3) Even after an armistice, there are things to be worked out. No settlement settles everything.
4) Take pride in your beliefs. You don't have to be an evangelist, but defend your convictions when called upon to do so.
5) It's worth saying again - nothing beats fantastic organizing. Ever. For anything.

You Can Pry The Free Beer That I Drink At Work From My Cold, Dead Hands

Danish beer producer Carlsberg faced a strike walkout combo this week. Were workers trying to protect their health insurance and retirement benefits? No. Were they protesting the death of their coworkers as a result of inadequate safety precautions? Um, not that either.

No, what happened was this: the company changed its beer policy so that instead of being able to drink throughout the day, workers could only drink at lunch.

My folks frequently regale me with tales of the days when three martini lunches really, literally happened, and workers took naps at their desks without shame. What happened, America? Why do we no longer love freedom?

Apparently Carlsberg had been planning to change the rule for a while, and smartly decided to get around to it right when the weather was nice enough for 800 workers to go on strike.

My favorite aspect of this news is that the truck drivers are exempt from the rule. You know, the people who drive enormous multi-ton time bombs across highways (although the company has installed some kind of don't-drive-drunk lock on its trucks)?

Europe is awesome in so many ways. Can you see a major corporation in the U.S. begging workers to come back to work because, hey, they installed taps near the employee cafeteria so you can have plenty of free beer at lunch!

I would love to go party across Northern Europe. I'll start by pre-gaming in Denmark.

Andy Stern is Still (Power) Hungry

The caption that was posted along with this picture is too funny to not pass along, "Where's me bank?" (On the left is John Wilhelm, former president of the union HERE and current Hospitality Division president of UNITE HERE; on the right is Bruce Raynor, former president of UNITE and current president of UNITE HERE; and on Raynor's shoulder is a leprechaun version of Andy Stern, president of SEIU.)

For those of you who might not know the context of this picture and why I find it hilarious, let me try to give the short version of the ongoing saga at UNITE HERE. Basically the short version, UNITE — the former union of textile workers — and HERE — the former union of hotel and foodservice employees — merged to form a single union, UNITE HERE. The merger was precipitated by the fact that HERE had been very successful at organizing members but was burning through cash while UNITE's membership had been declining but was flush with money because the union is the owner of Amalgamated Bank. All was good while the two presidents, Bruce Raynor (UNITE) and John Wilhelm (HERE)were getting along. Then, they stopped agreeing, supposedly Wilhem wasn't allowing Raynor to head the union alone but Raynor was outvoted since at least 60% of UNITE HERE members were from former HERE locals. Anyway, Raynor started talking about a "divorce" (no, literally, with all of the normative assumptions that go along with it) and the two have been trash-talking each other in the press (for the longer version see here).

Well, it turns out that in the divorce there was really a lover in the wings. Andy Stern, the obnoxious president of SEIU wants both unions to join SEIU thereby increasing his own personal power, which it seems, is all that Andy Stern is interested in. Over the past month, the former UNITE locals resigned from the UNITE HERE, and this past weekend formed a new union, Workers United. The nascent union lasted all of a day before they affiliated with Stern's SEIU with a new agreement that essentially lets SEIU raid the sectors remaining under the former HERE's jurisdiction.

It seems like Andy Stern's sole goal in life is to gain more power for himself, make his organization bigger, and be seen hobnobbing with important people (for example). He sees himself as a modern-day John L. Lewis, but in reality he is a corporate-style thug who can't even be bothered to cover the corporate double-speak when busting the union of SEIU employees.^[1]

^[1] Please note that this post is solely my (Mike's) opinion by observing events in the labor movement for the past three years. Given his style, it would make complete sense why he wants to get his grubby hands on the only union-owned bank in the country.

AIG, Publisher's Clearinghouse Style

I like this idea from NPR science correspondent, Joe Palca for what to do about the AIG bonuses:

Here's what you do. Announce that the money will be handed out at a public function. Then, print the checks on those oversize posters like they do for the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes, so you can see the name of the lucky winner and the amount they received from 100 yards away. Anyone who wants the money has to come up on stage and have his or her picture taken with an irate Timothy Geithner.

I'm guessing many would decide it wasn't worth it. And for those who do, well, at least they'll have provided us with a little entertainment.

I also don't buy the line from the NYT columnist Andrew Sorkin that we (the U.S. taxpayers) need to hold our noses and pay out these bonuses because upholding contracts is too important of a value to abandon, no matter how morally righteous it might feel, “If you think this economy is a mess now, imagine what it would look like if the business community started to worry that the government would start abrogating contracts left and right.” Of course, Sorkin goes on to say that the “auto industry unions are facing a similar issue — but the big difference is that there is a negotiation; no one is unilaterally tearing up contracts.” But, that is what happened; as a condition to get the bailout money to save their jobs, the UAW was required to give concessions — and the compensation that they had negotiated and agreed to was severely diminished. It seems that when Congress says “Everyone needs a haircut,” I guess for some that means a trim, and for others a complete shave.

And, speaking of unions, I had the same question as Josh Marshall at TPM, “Where's Labor?” I mean this seems form-fit to read into a narrative about corporate excess: while AIG is “contractually obligated” to pay these dipshits that ran the entire world economy into the ground, UAW workers were forced to concede a significant portion of their salaries, benefits, and pensions (which, are bound by the contractual obligation under federal labor law) before the Big Three could get a fraction of what AIG has received from the federal government. From what I could tell, the AFL-CIO blog has nothing and the Change to Win Connect blog has a completely convoluted post about signing a petition for the Employee Free Choice Act to stop AIG. Granted, EFCA would be a huge shot in the arm for labor and I think that it should pass, but this seems like the most clear-cut moral case that labor could make right now, and it is virtually silent on the issue or tries to fit it into a completely different pre-made frame.

How Timely and Depressing

Tonight, E. and I watched Roger and Me, Michael Moore's first documentary about the trials of Flint, Michigan as General Motors started closing down the plants that the city had, for so long, relied upon. Given the time that I spent less than an hour away from Flint, I am ashamed to say that I have neither visited the town nor ever watched Roger and Me before tonight. The movie is really depressing — and it's meant to be so. The tragedy of what happened in Flint is really catastrophic. Moore's documentary is filmed as the slow trainwreck unfolds, everyone waiting for their next day of reckoning getting laid off two, three, or four times from different GM plants.

What struck us both is how eery it was to watch this film as the entire country looks like it might be on the precipice heading towards a similar fate as that of Flint. In fact, I was listening to a story on the Marketplace podcast last week about money that states and local jurisdictions received to stablize neighborhoods. In many places, this means providing money to fix foreclosed homes and get them on the market so that they don't bring down the property values of the surrounding homes (which would then cause more mortgage-holders to be underwater, thus fueling the housing mess further); but, sadly, in Detroit (and, presumably, Flint) this money is not going to fix up homes — it's going to demolishing them. It's really sad that the best hope that places like that have to stabilize communities is by destroying them.

Perhaps what rung out most clearly in my mind listening to this tonight is how many rich people, many GM executives, were telling the poor workers of Flint to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and start over. Several had comments about lazy people on welfare and a couple had the attitude of, "Well this is the way capitalism works..." I wonder how many of them are now executives at GM, a company that might go under no matter how much they borrow from the U.S. Treasury, are going to be singing the same tune now. As E. presciently pointed out, I think that the rules are going to change about what the government and corporations should do for people now that it is their job on the line. In the end, we were wondering if there was any way that we could help former workers like those from Flint and those going through similar situations now. We couldn't come up with anything large but thought of a couple that we might start as we try to figure out the best way that might be able to help. If anyone has any ideas, let us know.

Port Authority Salaries

I usually avoid ribbing civil servants about their salaries, because a) they are usually low, and b) if they're high, many (perhaps most?) of our public servants are talented, unsung heroes who could have made bank with their skills but chose to serve the public instead, so bravo if they can make a decent living.
Today, however, I freely mock the reported salaries of employees at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, generally speaking. Here's a public agency that just raised its tolls (so the fat salaries look bad), has failed to rebuild the WTC site projects in a respectable time frame (so the fat salaries look bad), and seemingly towards giving at least one airport tenant a free pass on a recently passed labor harmony/employee retention policy (which just makes me angry) and turns out fully one sixth of Port Authority employees make upwards of $100 K a year.
The one caveat is that I think the outrage over police officers making over $100 K a year is distasteful. Why shouldn't someone who risks his or her life to save your ass make just as much as the bureaucrat who processes his paperwork?

More ideas to revitalize the labor movement

Snaps to Wobblie, who started this conversation. I could go on and on with suggestions, but I'll stick to what I think is the most important topic for these five suggestions: "Talking To People Under 50."

1. Celebrities. In my dream, Kanye West sings "Spaceship" or "Heard 'Em Say" to a crowd, talks a little about the references in his songs to low-wage work, and while we're at it, sells or gives away some Kanye Says Raise Minimum Wage t-shirts.
2. Unions are pathetic on the internet. Use Facebook and MySpace strategically in organizing campaigns. Nothing like 4,000 shoppers joining a "Boycott [Insert Monster Teen Retailer Here]" group to freak out [Insert Monster Teen Retailer Here]. And come on, update your own websites once in a while. Have a blog. Go nuts.
   
3. This has been suggested endlessly, but the more members are seen as part of the process for electing leadership, giving political endorsements and campaign contributions, and targeting companies, the better; c.f. Obama's inclusive, grassroots, "you matter" message that galvanized young voters.
4. Use your high school and college interns wisely. Don't plunk them into scary salting situations, or stick them behind a desk doing data entry. Get them invested in and excited about what they're doing.
5. For that matter, don't burn and churn your young regular staffers, who are also often just out of high school or college. We know union leaders should be tough and encourage toughness, but pushing people to the point of no return is no good.
   

My Turn, Five Strategies for the Labor Movement

In the ongoing online seminar discussing what can improve public confidence in the labor movement, I wanted to add my two cents. As a punishment for extreme tardiness, I will restrict myself to three:^[1]

1. Highlight grievance procedures one of the main strengths gained through organizing. Too many times I have seen discussions about negotiations or unions in general revolve around wages and benefits. I think that these are important - don't get me wrong. I like to be paid and I like my healthcare provided (although, I would prefer that be provided as a fundamental right -- but that is a discussion for another time and place). But, some of the most important benefits belonging to a union is the fact that you have the right to a fair process before disciplinary action or firing can happen. This is a fundamental notion for most people and gets at the basic sense of freedom in most Americans - you should have the right to defend yourself. Dave mentions this as one of many items, but I think that highlighting this single point can go a long way.


2. Think of new ways to organize that speak to the realities of workers. This is where I believe that organizing must overlap with PR. Our notion of "organizing the workplace" is antiquated. Too many workers now have two or three jobs - organizing one workplace does nothing without organizing the other one or two in which workers are employed. I think that there is some movement towards this - UNITE HERE's organizing of entire hotel markets under a single contract -- or all jobs in the case of the Las Vegas Culinary Local. Also, the idea of a "Freelancer's Union is the type of thing that the AFL should be taking seriously. Similarly, we need to stop thinking about "workplace" issues versus other issues. For example, the biggest obstacle facing workers in New York is not necessarily their wages or benefits, but the exorbitant cost of housing in the city. Organizing for the realities of new types of lifestyles is a necessity.


3. Go for citizen-initiated ballot proposals to overturn "right-to-work" laws. Yup, that's right. I've gone off the deep end. Lex is right, EFCA needs to be passed - major victories set a "winning" agenda. But, I think that going after right-to-work laws does two things. First, it allows labor to set the agenda on labor issues rather than being defined as the opposition. We all know the advantage to proactive campaign messages rather than reactive ones. Second, spending money to win something means that our opponents have to spend money to defeat us - rather than us spending money to defeat them (and really gaining nothing that we don't already have in the process). Let's go for broke. We'll win some, we'll lose some - but, hey, at least we're setting the agenda.

I'd be interested to hear what others think.

^[1] Of course, this is also because many of the good ideas have been taken.

Richardson: Not Getting Labor's Vote

I have to admit. I am happy that Bill Richardson is in the race for the Democratic nomination, it gives me something to look forward to laughing at.

Now, this is the man who said that being gay is a choice then, blamed it on being jet-lagged and the one who, as I noted before, opened the AFL-CIO debate by saying, "I will continue to take your money." But, I think that in terms of pure embarrassment, this has to take the cake:

Bill Richardson to SEIU: "Thank you, AFSCME" (via TPM)

I would love to see that YouTube video. How do you screw up not one, but two, of your major constituencies?

Labor Leadership in 2008

For those of you interested in labor's position on politics, there is an interesting NYT piece on where the AFL-CIO and Change to Win federations are in terms of endorsing candidates. I found this link at the blog, Standing with Labor and there is a solid analysis of the situation there. Basically, it breaks down to: 1) Unions don't want to jump on the bandwagon too soon so that they end up endorsing a candidate that has no chance of winning, but 2) if unions want to have the power (and do, in fact, have the power that they already claim), then they need to be able to push for their candidate. Picking someone who will win anyway is like telling the DLC-corporate Democrats, "Go ahead, you make your pick, then we will go along with that and beg for the table scraps from your candidate."

I have no doubt that Edwards is far better on labor issues than Clinton (who will inevitably be the candidate ordained by the New York AFL-CIO and UFT—and, therefore, AFT) and I don't know enough about Obama's record to know about his labor credentials to compare to Edwards. But, what I do know that Edwards has worked his ass off for the nomination of labor and, if they withhold it for the eventual 'winner', unions will be seen for a generation of Democratic candidates as 'fair-weather friends' and will have no influence at all. I can get behind an endorsement of someone I prefer less than my ideal candidate; but I can't get behind wishy-washy-we-don't-want-to-rock-to-many-boats political endorsements that mean more politics-as-horserace crap.

If unions want to reshape the political landscape and pass things like EFCA, then we have to take the leadership, and the attendant risks of leadership, to do it. If they want to be relegated to whining about candidates that never listen, then I don't want to hear it anymore. And, as Jordan point outs, with Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire front-loaded, unions could really be a "king (or queen) maker"; it's up to union members and (to a much to-great extent) leaders to decide.

Reject Relay!

Speaking of UNITE HERE campaigns , she is working with workers at the NY/NJ Port Authority airports (specifically, Newark and JFK) who have gotten so fed up with their company, HDS North American Retail (they operate the RELAY travel, Virgin Records and other stores) that they are asking people to boycott their own stores.

Lest someone argue that these types of corporate campaigns are all talk and no walk, well the workers did just that. On Thursday morning, to show how frustrated they were, the workers walked out on a one day strike. Although I know that we have had our trouble with one-day walkouts, this is such a cool way to demonstrate to the company (and the Port Authority who actually owns the space) how serious the workers are about organizing. While I know that I am biased because E. is working on the campaign, I think that this is the best way to combine the benefits of a "corporate comprehensive campaign" with the power of on-the-ground worker mobilization. If I can get any more information out of E. about it, I will pass it along.

But, until then, sign the petition and don't shop at Virgin Records in the airport (I know that is what everyone does when they travel).

Labor, labor, labor: Article from the NYT about the Importance of Unions

I have been posting a lot about labor in the past couple of days, mostly having to do with the fact that the EFCA was up for a vote yesterday and the labor world has been abuzz. But, I will post at least one more because here is a must-read article from the NYT (via LabourStart) on EFCA vote yesterday. My favorite part was:

But if they don’t change the size of the economic pie, they do influence how it’s divvied up. All else equal, a union worker makes about 15 percent more per hour than a nonunion worker and also gets better benefits. So while there are many reasons inequality has increased over the last three decades — like technology and global trade — the decline of unions is certainly one of them.

David Leonhardt concludes that something needs to be done to crack down on anti-union tactics employed by corporations and that, while eliminating secret ballots might not be the best tactic, unionization is important to reduce the rampant inequality in our nation. As they say, well worth reading the whole article.

After the Employee Free Rights Act

Unfortunately, the Employee Free Choice Act has died in the Senate based on a 51-48 vote for cloture. The anti worker, Management Labor Lawyers, and corporations who like to destroy their worker's hopes at a better life should be happy. They have succeeded in making elections unfair, biased and wrought with fraud and intimidation all in the name of ensuring "fair elections." The AFL-CIO's response is to say that we are building momentum while the CtW blog response is a call-to-action telling workers that:

The next step, of course, is to work even harder through 2008 and get even bigger pro-worker majorities in Congress (and a pro-worker President in the White House), so that even that 60-vote requirement won't stand in the way of ensuring the right to join together in unions for workers across America.

While I would hope that a stronger pro-labor majority in 2008 will be the turning point for lowering barriers to democratically joining a union, I don't believe that it is going to be the kind of overwhelming groundswell that is going to be necessary to change the reality on the ground. I am not sure that I have the answers to what would be the ideal strategy, but I have a couple of ideas for turning support for strengthining workers' voices through collective action.

• First, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win federations need to do a better job letting the public know why change is immediately necessary. While this campaign had better coordination and publicity among more "general" progressive/liberal supporters, building a kind of solid coordinated campaign needed to be stronger.


• Second, I don't believe that the next step is supporting candidates in 2008. I believe that this is important, but I think that the AFL-CIO/CtW federations need to take a strong stand on other employment legislation. This includes vigorously supporting the legislation proposed by Sens. Clinton (D-NY), Kennedy (D-MA), Mikulski (D-MD) and Harkin (D-IA) and Rep. Miller (D-CA 7) in the House to amend existing fair-pay acts to prevent another decision like Ledbetter decision by the Supreme Court. Worker's interests are advanced both by expanding membership in federations and by making the United States workplaces better environments for workers.


• Third, workers need to be empowered in some way to see this as a fight in which they can be involved. Why not build on some of the momentum from this campaign and try and turn some vulnerable right-to-exploit states (like Colorado or Kentucky) through ballot initiatives. A strong campaign in which people feel invested is the best way to build a political base. Furthermore, as we have seen from the minimum-wage legislation, the momentum built from the states can build into federal legislation.


• Finally, can we please, please, please, please, pleeeeeaaase (pretty please, with sugar and cherries and whipped cream on top) come up with a better message? Standing on the "workers don't need elections" is instant death. There are reasons why it is important to get card-check. The elections are corrupt and unenforceable. The endless legal battles and repeated infractions of the NLRA make the democratic decision to form a collective voice impossible. Explaining why this system is corrupt and needs to be overhauled to an American public which supports union rights is necessary; doing it in such a way that rhetorically doesn't sound like you are opposed to elections is vital.

I hope that the AFL-CIO/CtW makes good on their collective promise to build a stronger culture of organizing and not wait for our lobbyists to collect co-sponsors on the Hill and actually puts some money and effort behind changing laws on the ground state-by-state.

AFL-CIO/CtW Split on Immigration

There is an interesting article in the NYT today about the split between the AFL-CIO and three of the Change to Win unions over the immigration bill before Congress. Although the article is painfully brief and seems more intent on describing a split within labor than actually dissecting why it might be that there are differences within labor, it brings up an interesting point: is the guest-worker program bad for workers who want to form unions to make their lives better, or is it good for them?

Let me preface my response by saying that I know painfully little about this particular immigration bill. I have skimmed the AFL-CIO Executive Council's statement on immigration reform. They cite three basic things that need to change:

1. The outsourcing of jobs to other countries. This sounds like the standard AFL-CIO protectionist line, but at least they have the root of the cause underlying causes correct: policies like NAFTA which absolutely restrict the movement of labor while allowing (almost) complete mobility of capital creates a disadvantageous situation from the perspective of workers to the benefit of multi-national corporations.


2. Gaming of the current immigration system by corporations. Currently, the only agency responsible for overseeing the proper treatment of undocumented workers is the NLRB. Undocumented workers have no recourse to fair treatment and, thus, corporations use this to their advantage to strike fear into their workers meaning that workers have everything to lose — their job, income, residency, etc. — while the corporations can simply write off any penalties as a "cost of doing business."


3. The creation of a guest-worker program create a second-class citizenry in the United States. Here, the AFL-CIO aruges that:
   

   Guestworker programs are bad public policy and operate to the detriment of workers, in the both the public and private sector, and of working families in the U.S. The abuses suffered by workers in the first such program, the post World-War II Bracero program, are well documented. The negative effects of the modern versions of the “guestworker” construct—such as the H1-B and H2-B programs—are all too evident today. Workers around the country are witnessing the transformation of formerly well-paying, permanent jobs into temporary jobs with little or no benefits, which employers are staffing with vulnerable foreign workers who have no real enforceable rights through the guestworker programs. These modern programs have had a major and substantial detrimental effect on important sectors of our economy.

   
   Essentially, the AFL-CIO is looking at the macro-economic picture and looking at high supply driving down demand, and, thus, the value of labor to corporations. As the NYT article points out, labor was behind Democratic efforts to get the number of guest-worker visas halved.

At the same time, it seems like the three Change to Win unions backing this bill — the SEIU, UNITE HERE, and United Farm Workers — are making the same argument that the AFL-CIO is making. While there is no formal statement of policy similar to the AFL-CIO Executive Council statement (probably stemming from the fact that the CtW has very little cohesion, even on this issue the Teamsters are splitting from the federation as it seems they are wont to do), the letter to Arlen Specter and Patrick Leahy from CtW chair Anna Burger is probably the closest thing to the AFL-CIO statement. Both unions are asking for the same things: a full path to citizenship, preventing guest-worker programs to turn into a second-class citizenry, and, most importantly, an avenue for workers to become full citizens of the country.

One could argue that these are really different arguments wrapped in the same veneer of PR double-speak, but I actually believe that the two positions, contrary to the coverage by the NYT are not that dissimilar. What I believe is different is the general goal of the two groups. On the one hand, the AFL-CIO sees the globalization of capital flows without the attendant globalization of labor flows as the essential problem. Their solution, however, would only seem to exacerbate the situation. Mandating that immigrants become citizens of the United States reveals the essentially protectionist argument; while the AFL-CIO is willing to concede that all laborers should have exactly the same protections as long as they reside in the United States. Instead, what the AFL-CIO needs to be doing is making it possible to organize multinational unions and bring protections through the very mechanisms that tie workers together. Currently organizing labor action internationally illegally, so the AFL-CIO says this is an impediment to organizing. If I have my labor history correct, striking itself was illegal before the success of the AFL, the CIO and Wobblies in the 1930s (among others, I am sure).

On the other hand, SEIU, UNITE HERE and the UFW are accepting the guest-worker program essentially, I believe, because it lessens one of the greatest impediments to organizing in the low-wage service sector: the problem of documentation. Employers such as SWIFT use the threat of deportation and ICE crackdowns as a threat against joining unions. And, why are the low-wage service sector jobs so terrible? Because they don't have the ability to collective organize and demand more from their employers. People talk about the glory of manufacturing jobs, but they were looked at with just as much disdain as current service jobs are. They aren't better jobs because they are more "manly" or because they involve machines and big parts; they are better jobs because the UAW, USW, UMWA, and other manufacturing unions fought hard to make those good jobs. The service-sector unions believe that the guest worker program will reduce the barrier of fear and lower the threshold for workers to talk to each other and act collectively to better their lives and working conditions. Of course this, too, comes at a cost: the service sector unions must be willing to accept the potentially terrible conditions that get placed on this guest-worker program which could turn it into a new racist Bracero program designed to undercut costs of all labor in the United States while simultaneously making it virtually impossible for workers to organize.

This problem, like that of trade (which I have discussed previously) is one which is virtually inescapable because the kinds of institutions and policies that we are using as tools to deal with this issue are outdated to the kind of problem that we confront. Both the AFL-CIO and the service-sector unions are confronting the problem with old tactics: the AFL-CIO gave up its anti-immigrant protectionist stance to form a pro-immigrant protectionist stance while the service-sector unions are willing to compromise to eliminate one of the obstacles of organizing with the leap of faith that it will be a step towards larger policy changes. Without organizing across national lines and only using legislation as a piece of a strategy rather than the entire strategy itself, these projects cannot have the kind of positive and sustained impact either the AFL-CIO or the service sector wants. Until labor confronts the issues that are presented by the international flow of capital with a sustained and effective campaign to assert workers' rights in that flow, we are doomed to be sticking our thumbs in the dikes of globalization.

Best Campaign Slogan. Ever.

Yesterday, I joined E. and members of UNITE HERE in the NY Pride parade. We received much applause and thumbs-up as we went down the street under signs that said, "SleepWithTheRightPeople.org" I swear, that has to be the best campaign sign, ever. Sleep With The Right People is a partnership between the LBGT community (including Pride at Work) and UNITE HERE, including the Hotel Workers Rising campaign (which also has a great slogan: Lifting one another above the poverty line).

It was a very interesting event that was both uplifting and sad. It was great to see how much support there is for things as basic as recognizing partnerships or for TBLG couples to be able to adopt children; but it is also sad recognizing how little will there is, politically, for such systematic change. The moment of silence an hour into the parade was a stark reminder of the reality of our current world. Calling attention to the discrimination against TBLG folks is, I guess, the first step in making sure that moment of silence becomes increasingly less of a contemporary and more of a historical issue.

Blogging Labor

Realizing that Dave had a great suggestion of trying to compile a list of current union blogs, I was thinking of ways that might not be so time consuming to follow/find new links.

So, I introduce, to you, the "Latest Labor Blog Posts" feature on my sidebar. It is built off of a feed from Google's Blog Search and is not extremely fancy. I am hoping to try and mess around with the search string a little more to see what kinds of results I can get back. I imagine that this one is going to be dominated by the "institutional" blogs like AFL-CIO Weblog. I hope you enjoy!

P.S. It also shouldn't bring back results from the assholes at Union "Facts" either as to prevent the list being clogged by bullshit and to prevent embarrassing episodes.

Union Subtlety

Jon Stewart thinks that Democrats shouldn't be open about the importance of joining unions... He thinks we need "code words". FF to 3:20 in the video although the part about Obama ringtones is pretty f'ing hilarious.

Trade Policy and the Democratic Party

One of the most perplexing issues that I often find myself thinking about being involved in leftist politics is that regarding trade policy. On the one hand, I find the traditional AFL-CIO protectionist position shortsighted at best and xenophobic at worst. On the other, I find non-labor lefty advocates blaming outsourcing on the UAW and other manufacturing unions because they "asked for too much" to be patently absurd. Then there is always the "unions don't matter any more" stance. Obviously, there are well-reasoned and not so inflammatory positions between these extremes. However, the question is perplexing in its complexity, especially given the new trade agreement compromise reached between Democrats and Bush.

Paul Krugman's latest column in the NYT (subscription required) argues essentially the same thing:

Nothing divides Democrats like international trade policy. That became clear last week, when the announcement of a deal on trade between Democratic leaders and the Bush administration caused many party activists to accuse the leadership of selling out.

The furor subsided a bit as details about the deal emerged: the Democrats got significant concessions from the Bushies, while effectively giving a go-ahead to only two minor free trade agreements (Peru and Panama). But the Democrats remain sharply divided between those who believe that globalization is driving down the wages of many U.S. workers, and those who believe that making and honoring international trade agreements is an essential part of governing responsibly.

What makes this divide so agonizing is that both sides are right.

Krugman sees the protectionist argument doing more harm than good in non-Western/developing nations such as Bangladesh and India while the pro-internationalist argument having a depressing effect on American worker's wages. Krugman sees no solution to this debate; rather, Krugman believes that Democrats, "if [they] really want to help American workers, they'll have to do it with a pro-labor policy that relies on better tools than trade policy. Universal health care, paid for by taxing the economy's winners, would be a good place to start."

This is in contrast to the editors of The Nation. In their editorial on the trade deal, the editors believe that the Democrats "Sold Out" over the issue. The solution to the problem, they argue, is:

The deeper problem facing the Democratic Party is that it does not have a coherent strategy on trade and globalization, aside from going along with the status quo. The goal of establishing international labor and environmental rights is heroic, but it can't succeed as long as the trading system itself is flawed. Furthermore, in the best of circumstances it will take a generation for the labor rights struggle to make a dent in global wage differentials. Can working people wait twenty years? Can the American economy?

In other words, these two pieces show the exact problem: Krugman believes that the problem is that we focus too much on trade policy per se while The Nation thinks that Democrats are not focusing enough on trade policy. I think that this incongruity becomes even clearer looking at The Nation's prescriptions to confront "global wage differentials":

First, cap the swollen US trade deficits--stop the bleeding--and develop a more balanced international trade regime. Second, use the tax code to get control of US multinationals and force them to align with the nation's economic interests. Third, force the reform of one-sided international institutions like the WTO and IMF so they will serve people and societies, not just capital and corporations. Fourth, continue the long-term struggle to enact trade rules for people of all nations--protecting labor, the environment, economic equity and other progressive values.

While Krugman is arguing that our focus should be domestic, fixing our broken healthcare system that costs employers and employees severely to the benefit of a single sector of the U.S. economy, The Nation argues that the solutions are essentially international, we need to fix our trade deficit and reform the WTO and IMF to not be an international agent of multinational corporations. Maybe this break over the trade issue is not really about trade at all, it is simply the greatest manifestation of a split between Democrats who prioritize domestic policies over ones who prioritize international policies. This is something that I had not really pondered, but which Matthew Yglesias has discussed. Essentially, among activists in the Democratic Party, there is the AFL-CIO (and now CtW) on one hand and internationalist-type activists on the other. And, among all of the solutions, I think that his analysis comes the closest to a real solution. The difference between the two "factions" is the AFL-CIO is more powerful and

Not that I begrudge the unions their influence, either. They won it fair and square -- with organizing, with money, with volunteers, with discipline, with clear requests, etc. As you see with any influential group, securing influence takes work. Sadly, there are virtually no institutions of any consequence organized around providing a progressive take on the substance -- as opposed to labor procedures -- of national security issues.

Ygelsias understands what the issue is and highlights it by emphasizing that it takes work (his emphasis). Although he is dismayed by the fact that international policy is not an issue around which there is great organization, being among the international-types himeslf, he does understand more than Krugman or The Nation what it would take to develop a real international policy.

While this diversion is certainly interesting, what does this have to do specifically with trade policy? I think that the division between domesticists and internationalists that Ygelsias sees is a very real one; the one quibble that I would have is that he fails to point out that these divisions are largely based on class. The more wealthy "netroots" is all about ending the war in Iraq and not inhibiting the free trade of goods and information provided that the trade itself does not outright exploit those who are doing the work itself. The more working-class labor unions on the other hand, fight to protect good jobs in the United States, even if this means focusing so narrowly on it that they forget that they exist in a larger world. The single issue where these two viewpoints are forced to confront each other is in trade policy; it is at the same time involved with the globalization of information and goods and the bread-and-butter job security of manufacturing (and, increasingly, service) employees.

I think that, in this light, both Krugman and The Nation skirt the issue by diverting attention. Krugman's focus on universal healthcare creates a national issue on which there is universal agreement among Dems, albeit with disproportionate passion from the domesticists. The Nation's focus on reforming the IMF and WTO diverts the issue to a singularly international arena on which there is universal agreement.

The other argument that I would make is that focusing simply on policy without politics (little "p") is not going to get very far. As the "mass accumulation" economy of the late industrial revolution has given way to the "flexible accumulation" economy in which we now exist, effective forms of organizing are not neatly tied to industry anymore than the shift from the economy of the early industrial revolution's focus on crafts assisted when the assembly-line arrived. As Ygelsias points out, organizing is the one strategy that gets results. International organizing, particularly if it is international organizing through unions, is potentially the only way to confront these challenges. And while this was one of Andy Stern's (forgotten) tenets in his "Changing to Win" agenda, it seems like both the CtW and AFL-CIO have been slow to pick this up. Luckily, not everyone has forgotten. Stephen Lerner, the director of Justice for Janitors lays out the beginnings of this kind of strategy in a May Day article in AlterNet and the Steelworkers have announced plans to investigate a merger with British unions Amicus and the Transport and General Workers Union to counter the internationalization of corporations. This will obviously also mean changing international laws to allow international strikes and labor action, a major flaw with current organizing and Harold Meyerson points out. Hopefully, however, these initial talks and coordination with emergent radical movements that are willing to aggressively fight these laws will lead to the kind of pressure that really will make this kind of international labor movement possible.

Shameless Hijacking of a Discussion Thread...

Since I apparently used tags that are not allowed in Blogger's comments, I am shamelessly directing a great discussion from Dave's blog to this one... I hope its not too shameless. But, anyway, on Dave's blog, I see Dave's post having two different "themes":

1. He is tired of being lectured about the dying labor movement by mostly white and mostly male aging baby-boomers that oversaw that very decline.


2. He is deeply skeptical of the ability of "corporate campaigns" to succeed as a force for organizing labor in this country

On the first point, I cannot agree with Dave more. I am tired of being told how great the labor movement used to be and how our generation "just doesn't understand." I am frustrated by the fact that, as I try and learn in the Movement, I am continually told that I have no clue what I am talking about or that I am a kid "playing union." I think that at some time or another, all of us in the grad labor movement have faced this -- and I am a straight, white male. I see Dave's criticism arising partly from the fact that labor leaders, union bosses to the rank-and-file leadership, have become complacent over the past fourty years by failing to incorporate employees from new economic sectors into their "good-ol' boys" club. Even as many of these boomers complain of the decline of the labor movement, Dave rightly points out that there has been an expansion in the public and service sector employment by unions that largely employ women and minorities (though it is important to note that the presidents of AFSCME, the UFCW, SEIU, and UNITE HERE are all white males).

But, on the second point, I find Dave's analysis a little bit more problematic. On the one hand, he argues that the decline of the labor movement is becoming perilous because we have been following the same old tactics of the boomers straight off the metaphorical cliff. On the other, Dave is skeptical of one of the new tactics that has been employed to try and reverse this decline. It is a point that Dave has made before, which sadly died with the Green Blog of Revolution, about the effectiveness of a labor strategy that does not incorporate job actions. I have two arguments. I believe the first falls in line with what Patrick and Wobblie have argued, and I have previously discussed on my blog; in short, the labor movement will be stronger and succeed more by building a strong community-based organizing model and working with organizations like the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. I think that we all agree on this point.

My second argument addresses the tactics of "comprehensive campaigns" themselves. In the past direct labor action has succeeded because it was aimed at the bottom line of the corporations. In a period of mass accumulation, shutting down a plant for a day, week, month, year cost the corporation money. This is still true for our "white and tight" brothers and (some) sisters in the building trades. But, as corporations in the United States shift from making their their money by mass accumulation and much more from flexible accumulation and non-productive service work, then organizing a direct work action does not really affect the bottom line of the corporation. But, just as the CIO used new tactics of plant shut-downs compared to the AFL method of limiting the labor pool by controlling apprenticeships into the trades, the new economy requires new tactics be designed. Because so many corporations now rely on their images, the building a comprehensive campaign can be an effective way to start hitting the bottom line of corporations. And, where infrastructure has not been privatized, political pressure by highlighting the negative impacts of the corporation are entirely appropriate.

Which brings up Wobblie's point -- flinging poo 'til something sticks is not the best way to implement this tactic. Particularly in conservative Scottsdale. But, at the same time, at least the UFCW is organizing. At least they see the importance of building these connections. And, they have also taken a strong stand and their leadership has learned from their members at Smithfield and SWIFT plants and have, more effectively than any other attempt thus far, linked immigration to labor rights. And, with strong organizing with comprehensive campaign tactics, UNITE HERE has built a strong model in both Las Vegas and the Hotel Worker's Rising campaign. At different times, both of these efforts could probably have been accused of "flinging poo" but, overall, have given labor great hope in the past couple of decades. So, to the extent that the mistakes along the way are contained (see UFCW's TESCO campaign in Scottsdale) we should not discount the tactic of comprehensive campaigns.

Another Labor Notes Article

Also in Labor Notes this month is an article by Tiffany Ten Eyck about the affiliation of Worker's Centers with National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON).

This affiliation brings up an interesting point that refers to something that I have been thinking about since Dave posted this entry. In his question, "Can a strike be won, if the work is done?" he brings up an interesting point which is how workers must we rely on outside agitators and not solely on the militancy of an organized workforce.

What I have been thinking is the extent to which it may be possible to couple community organizing with labor organizing to develop a really powerful and relatively permanent coalition of organized people working on their own behalf. Taking on workplace issues when many service-sector workers also face issues regarging healthcare, tenant's rights violations, child care and schooling issues doesn't necessarily speak to all of the situation of workers in their daily lives.

Then, the less preferable option Dave mentions -- relying on outside agitators to win labor campaigns -- can really become the more preferable option: workers can be militantly organized around all issues that affect them in their lives. Then, one does not have to rely on "outside" agitators because those agitators become the families, friends and neighbors of the workers. It seems, then, like developing the link between worker's centers and traditional labor organizing is a way to strengthen both the labor movement and the progressive movement in this country.

I am interested in what others think...