Dear John:

Since the AFL-CIO meeting in Vegas, I had a chance to look over your statement of March 2nd. I was thrilled to see you say that the AFL-CIO has a plan to INCREASE the labor movement’s investment in helping workers organize. Actually, you made this point twice in four paragraphs.

But, why does your proposal actually seem to propose CUTTING organizing? Here are the numbers as I believe they appear in the Federation’s balance sheets:

The AFL-CIO’s total current budget income is $124,983,140 (okay, there are probably a few cents in there, too but let’s call it even). Of that, $22,500,000 (or 18 percent of the budget) was allocated to organizing (Special Fund and General Fund combined). The current proposal you unveiled at the Vegas meeting would CUT organizing to $15,000,000 (or 12 percent of the budget)–or at least that’s the only numbers that were put forth for organizing via rebates to internationals. That’s a CUT of $8.5 million dollars (a CUT of 34 percent). And it certainly seems from the surprise at the Organizing Committee meeting in Vegas that the staff is expecting steep cuts in organizing.

How is a CUT considered an INCREASE? I know inside-the-Beltway, the Bush Administration uses this logic all the time (e.g., we’re for veterans but we’re cutting money for veterans). But us?

I’m wondering: Do you think that the CUT-called-an-INCREASE strategy might backfire a little on Capitol Hill where the AFL-CIO’s number one priority is the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, which is supposed to make it easier for workers to organize? How do you make the argument to Congress that this Act (which I personally believe will pass sometime in the year 2040, what with the Democrats doing such pro-worker things as voting for the bankruptcy bill) is vitally important for organizing—and you want to CUT funds for organizing workers? I’m baffled.

Here’s where it gets even more confusing: politics is budgeted at $28,780,000 (23 percent of the budget) and you’re proposing to increase that to $47,580,000 so that politics would then account for more than 38 percent of the budget.

Let me get this straight: we’re below 8 percent of the workforce in the private sector so you are proposing CUTTING organizing but INCREASING politics where we have failed. What exactly is the leverage we have in politics when we represent a tiny and shrinking part of the electorate? I’m not even trying to convince you here of my possibly wacky idea of not spending money for two years on federal politics and actually pouring it into organizing and other kick-the-shit-out-of-corporate-America efforts. But, I’m still not understanding the logic of INCREASING politics by almost $20 million (a 70 percent increase) while organizing is CUT so deeply?

By the way, there is a legitimate argument to be made that the Federation itself should not have anything to do with organizing, leaving organizing solely to internationals. From my perspective, we have to figure out some way of having a labor-wide organizing strategy, whether it’s coordinated by the Federation or some other body—we can’t be successful organizing big employers who cross borders unless there is some coordinated effort. But, then, let’s have that debate, without pretending that a CUT is an INCREASE.

It’s possible that there is more to the numbers beyond what’s been revealed. I’ll post any answer you send as an explanation.I’ll have more questions to ask in the coming days on some of the other numbers I’ve had a chance to review.