Well, there should be a little flurry of interesting stuff this week in the AFL-CIO back-and-forth. Today, the AFL-CIO Executive Committee meets–the members will get to hear first-hand from Andy Stern what his board decided this past Friday on disaffiliating from the Federation.

Then, Wednesday, as first reported here two days ago, the insurgent unions will meet to create a new organization to explore working on everything a new Federation would do. You can call it whatever you like but, as I said here the other day, it’s a clear warning shot at the AFL-CIO: here’s the framework of a new umbrella for anyone who wants to leave. And don’t forget about the UFCW’s executive board meeting, which will take up the prospect of leaving the Federation this week.

Also, expect more of what I got yesterday: endorsements of John Sweeney. The fact that the IBEW supports Sweeney is about as shocking a piece of news as saying The New York Times continues to be blindly, stupidly pro- so-called “free trade” (I guess I’ll have to decide whether to post every single one but IBEW is in the chute first so it gets a pass).

But, these endorsements will continue to come to offset the pressure the insurgents are applying–it may only be a ploy for the UFCW, Laborers, Teamsters and UNITE-HERE to signal that they are ready to bolt the Federation along with SEIU but even Sweeney supporters are going to be nervous.

Threatening to leave–and setting up a mechanism that walks, talks and quacks like a new Federation–may be the only way to start a movement to get Sweeney to step down. The votes aren’t there right now. But, current supporters are going to have to think about this: how do you run a Federation if all the insurgents leave?

It begins not to be a question about whether John Sweeney is the right person or whether unions want to stay loyal. I’m talking real money here: just SEIU leaving means a hit of $10 million in per capita. Add in the other four and the Federation would stand to lose at least another $20 million in per capita, forcing it to cut even more deeply into its staffing.

So, my guess is that virtually every one of the Sweeney endorsements will mimic the same language, in particular, the ending plea that, “A smaller, divided labor movement will only harm the cause of unionism.

Let us not celebrate the 50th anniversary of the merger of the AFL-CIO with actions that imperil our strongest asset – our solidarity. Keep the debate going, but keep the federation intact.”

That’s not just a rhetorical plea. It’s a plea that has some real dollars and cents attached to it.