No, we’re not back in English class (something I never could stomach, as my writing perhaps reveals). I’m just endlessly curious and fascinated by the framing of the debate about the future of labor. This morning, I was specifically thinking about how so many of us have been seized or paralyzed by the language of “THE SPLIT” in the labor movement, the damage it will cause and the bad people who are driving it.

In today’s USA Today, John Sweeney says he is working hard to prevent a “devastating” SPLIT in labor. And “Sweeney said a split in the labor movement would empower conservatives in Congress and non-unionized employers who oppose organized labor,” according to the piece.

I’m not pro- or con- disaffiliation from the AFL-CIO. I think each union has to make its own judgement about whether it makes sense for the individual union to be part of the Federation. But, I’m still unconvinced by the idea that it means bad things for the labor movement. I don’t think it matters.

Here’s how I see it:

No one has shown–at least, to me–that they have the magic answer to the crucial question: how does the labor movement organize on a huge scale? We need to bring in a net of 1.5 million members just to raise labor’s size by one percent of the workforce; last year, the Federation says that that net organizing number was 500,000 (optimistically and unverified by me). I don’t think the answer to the question is easy (nor magical) so this is not to blame anyone–and I think good people in each camp are really struggling with the challenge.

Having said that, it doesn’t appear to me that the answer is: The Federation. As I understand it, people feel strongly that the Federation represents, among other things, unity, power, influence, the labor movement being able to speak with one voice and strategic coordination.

So, let’s look at that concept: THE FEDERATION. It is sometimes referred to in the mainstream media (MSM) as the House of Labor. A house gives one a sense of comfort, stability, a place to call your own. For some people, I think the Federation is something they can look to as a sign that the labor movement lives and breathes.

But, it also is a mirage. And perhaps a dangerous narcotic.

By the nature of the institution, the Federation demands a search for the lowest common denominator and consensus. No affiliate is obligated to abide by an overall organizing plan. In fact, more than one international president (I’m trying to stay away from names here so we can not get all bent out of shape) proudly points to the independence of the 57 affiliated unions who can choose, as he says, to do as they please (for democracy’s sake, of course).

Okay, so, some would say: the perception of the labor movement as unified is important. To which I ask: perception by who? The Federation has NO MEANING to the nation, to workers, even to unionized workers. And I don’t think conservatives or non-union employers really–honestly, beyond rhetoric–find a unified Federation anymore of a challenge then one that would have fewer unions.

And, in today’s world, we don’t need a House to give comfort. We probably need less comfort. We need to feel that we can launch campaigns that might, in fact, endanger some institutions (because those campaigns might bring down the full force of the legal system or government).

I want to say quickly: there are some fantastic, hard-working smart, dedicated people who work on the Federation’s staff (if I mention your names that would just be bad for you). I just don’t think they often get a chance to do what needs to be done. Actually, if they had the right to speak publicly without getting fired, I guarantee you the line to the mike would be long with people who can tell you stories about the inability to get the lumbering Federation to move.

Look, the Federation isn’t completely useless. I’ve never argued that. The three questions are: what would happen tomorrow if the Federation dissolved? Would there be any real change in the security or power workers feel on a daily basis? And…

Is there any harm in building another House right next to the AFL-CIO house? Aand, a quick point: no union has actually said it’s leaving the AFL-CIO. The Change To Win coalition may continue to exist within the Federation but spend a whole lot of effort and money pushing new initiatives that do not have to pass muster inside the Federation.

Maybe–MAYBE–a new grouping of unions, freed from the internal constraints of the AFL-CIO, can actually cause enough ruckus that they change the way in which the wind is blowing in the country–which can only help those unions that remain inside the AFL-CIO. I’ve been shown some of the plans underway for joint organizing (but won’t talk about those here) and it’s damn impressive. Can it work? Who knows.

Is it worth a try? Damn straight.

All this musing, though, presumes one thing: that labor leaders can manage any changes like adults. If everyone can agree to work together no matter what structure they belong to, it will matter very little five years from now whether you belong to the AFL-CIO or not. I point simply to the statement by SEIU (because its leadership has taken the most explicit steps to leave) that, should it disaffiliate, it has offered to enter into no-raiding agreements with any other union, work with other unions on organizing and participate in AFL-CIO central labor bodies (if permitted).

It seems to me that the more people chastise those who want to go out on their own, the harder it’s going to be to maintain civility and forge ahead. And, as well, those who want to do something different need to turn down the volume, also. Let’s focus on the actual hardest question: how the hell do we organize millions of workers in a world where the neo-liberal, Darwinian globalization model rules?

I suppose I raise this today because we’re less than a couple of weeks away from the AFL-CIO convention. Seems to me it would be a lot more productive if the convention could take place without the tension, “you’re-the-enemy” stares, back-room maneuvering and all that crap. Instead, maybe John Sweeney could stand before the convention delegates and say, “If some of you choose to fight to empower workers outside the Federation, we respect your desire, wish you good luck and pledge to work side-by-side with you.”

Okay, I’m naive.

I’d like to hear thoughts from others, perhaps even from some principals of the various unions–I think contributions from principals would illuminate the issue for us small-folk.

Done for now.