So, I don’t think the diversity issue has been resolved. Today, the Federation is hosting a diversity summit–about 800 people are up (that would be above the dungeon I’m writing in) in the grand ballroom and it”s quite heartening to see such a broad range of unions represented.

John Sweeney opened the summit with a short speech. He pointed out, rightly I believe, that during his tenure the number of women and people of color who serve on the Executive Council has expanded; he’s also tapped women for senior positions in his Administration. Also, he pointed out that a resolution will come before the convention this week that would expand from 10 to 15 the number of Council seats allocated to fulfill the Federation’s on-going drive to bring more diversity to the higher levels of the Federation’s leadership (there are 49 members of the Council right now). All good.

Here’s the hitch. Power is now going to flow, in a more formal way, from the Executive ***Committee*** which will have, as its members, a vice president of each of the 15 largest affiliates, the Federation’s three executive officers (President, Secretary-Treasurer and the Executive Vice President) and four additional vice presidents for the purposes of diversity.

But, the definition of diversity is very troubling. Initally, yesterday, I pointed out that the language for diversity included “industrial sectors and crafts.” That’s not what I understand to be diversity–which would, in the most common understanding, be race, gender, sexual orientation and disability. And the amendment gives the power of appointment to the Federation’s President.

So, there was a bit of hoo-hah about that at the Executive Council. John Wilhelm of UNITE HERE criticized the language. Interestingly, none of the people who represent diversity–Bill Lucy of AFSCME, Leon Lynch of the Steelworkers or Gloria Johnson of the Nurses, to name a few–spoke up.

When the Constitution committee met yesterday, the language was changed to “sectoral breadth” as you can see from the current version now posted at the AFL-CIO website.

So, here are my final questions/thoughts:

1. What does the newer language do to prevent what I call the Mike Sacco effect? That is, allow the president of the Federation to appoint a white male to one of four seats that are slotted for diversity.

2. I’m baffled by the willingness of current Council members, who represent (either explicitly or because of who they are as leaders in their communities) the commitment to diversity, to let this amendment go forward. It essentially means they are letting slide a perhaps historic moment to solidify power where it will matter: on the Executive Committee. Frankly, the power in the full Council has always been with those 15 large affiliates–numbers matter when it comes to votes–but this convention will ratify the reality through the creation of the Executive Committee.

Here is the moment for people who have been demanding power and an equal place at the table–yet the current language of this amendment will make it possible that diversity–as my little mind interprets it–to be minimized, not maximized. This could be a historic missed opportunity.