A review of AFL-CIO audited statements for 1996 and 2004 by the coalition pushing for changes inside the labor movement shows some fairly interesting trends. I offer them as they are, with some comment:

• Under John Sweeney: AFL-CIO Income has grown dramatically, and AFL-CIO Expenses have grown far more dramatically.
• AFL-CIO income has increased by 56% since John Sweeney took over in 1996 through 2004 – from $93 million per year to $145 million per year. Operating revenue increased by 34% when accounting for transfer of the royalty share to the affiliates. Its operating income last year was roughly $120 million compared to $93 million when he took over.
• In the 1996-2004 period, per capita income rose slightly – $86.8 million v. $89.6 million – while net credit card income went from $0 to $25 million. By comparison, in 1995, Lane Kirkland’s last year, the AFL-CIO spent $73 million and ran a $3 million deficit.
• In 1996, Sweeney’s first year, the AFL-CIO spent $118 million and ran a $21 million deficit – even as per capita income that first year was increased by $20 million to pay for election work. In other words, in Sweeney’s first year the AFL-CIO spent $45 million more than was spent the previous year. My own personal bias is to look at how that money was, or was not spent, on organizing, as opposed to politics where I’ve said for sometime that I don’t think we should be spending so much relative to what goes into organizing (but there is also a reasonable argument to the contrary).
• The “insurgents” argue that AFL-CIO spending has ballooned out of control since Sweeney was elected.According to the definitions relied on by their auditors, AFL-CIO “program costs” have gone from 82.3% of operating expenses in 1996 to 66.1% in 2004. And program spending has actually fallen under Sweeney:

  In 1996, the AFL-CIO spent $97.5 million on programs, compared to $96 million in 2004.

• Meanwhile, governance and administration costs have risen from $21 million in 1996 to $49 million in 2004. “Governance costs” have increased from 5.6% of expenses in 1996 to 17.1% in 2004, and “Administration and Facilities Management Costs” have increased from 12% of expenses in 1996 to 16.7% in 2004. Overall, that means that the Federation’s bureaucracy has grown from 20.2% of expenses to 33.8% of expenses under Sweeney. That may or may not mean much without a look at what those increased expenses have meant. In other words, I think it’s worth having a reasonable, hard look at what that those additional dollars went to fund.
• General Fund net assets stood at $29.2 million when Sweeney took over in 1996. Today, they are in the red at $12.4 million, a deterioration of $41.6 million during his tenure – even as total income has skyrocketed. That should be of concern. However, deficit-spending is not necessarily all bad if it’s used to grow an operation for the long-term. That’s where I think the analysis should be aimed: what did the labor movement get for the deficit spending?

I think an underlying problem here is that because the debate has become so polarized, it’s been hard to have a deep, honest look at how the Federation’s money is spent and what the results have been.