I’m troubled after the teleconference John Sweeney held yesterday with the press. It’s not that the whole affair lasted just 30 minutes (and we had to provide our own coffee, doughnuts and Scotch), which included John’s opening statement and, then, a rush to squeeze in questions before, poof, he had to run before anyone really got into the meat of the document, “Winning for Working Families.” (I’ll refer to it as WWF…its bulk does remind one of the World Wrestling Federation)
It’s that the document raises more questions than it answers. The media reports describing the press conference and the new document focused almost entirely on the AFL-CIO’s financial situation (see The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times), the looming layoffs and the on-going power struggle for leadership of the Federation. Certainly, the AFL-CIO’s financial situation is worrisome (John, in answer to a question by the Washington Post’s Tom Edsall, called reports on “the web” that described the Federation’s finances, “rumors…ridiculous and irresponsible”…I smiled). But, there are a lot of questions to ask beyond those issues (and, in fairness to the press, the WWF report was sent just before the tele-conference and there wasn’t much time given to raise questions).
But, we’ve got another chance. The folks at the AFL-CIO press office said we could submit additional written questions. So, below are my Top Ten that I had wanted to ask (I have about fifty but whittled them down to focus on the key ones)—with a little editorializing thrown in. I’m going to send them to John and any answers will be posted here. If you have any additional ones, post your own through the COMMENTS and I’ll see if we can get them answered (let’s try to be nice, now).
An observation: these questions might be tough but are not meant to be disrespectful or hostile. I think John Sweeney is a decent man—but we’re in deep shit and we have to put out tough questions to try to get to the bottom of our crisis and turn this ship around. Or it’s over.
1. WWF says, “The rebuilt political program grew more effective.” Oooppppsss…did the Republicans yesterday resign the presidency, give up a larger Senate majority than it has had in several decades, and make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House? Seriously, the numbers showing an increase in the percentage of union members who vote (and, I’ve heard some people express skepticism about those numbers) belies the fact that we are in far worse shape, politically, than when the Sweeney Administration took over a decade ago.
Question: If we’re going to spend money on politics, does it make sense to say “more of the same?”
2. On organizing, WWF states that, in the face of fierce opposition, “despite these odds, nearly a million workers joined AFL-CIO unions in 1996 through 2004.” Question: How many of those new workers were already in independent unions that merged or affiliated with AFL-CIO union? In other words, how many of the one million are truly workers newly organized into unions?
3. Here are three related points made in the WWF: “The resources that fuel our federation represent only 1 percent of the dollars our members pay in dues” (page 5) and “An investment in organizing of 30 percent from AFL-CIO affiliated unions would result in annual resources for organizing of $500 million per year from the national union level alone” (page 7) and “where unions have met the 30 percent standard and worked to develop strategic capacity for organizing…they have made a real difference in workers’ lives.” (page 7).
Deep breath. Okay, John is right—there is a ton of money out there to organize with. Money is not the issue. Desire to organize is the issue. And your question is?: how many unions have actually invested the 30 percent standard? I’ll bet John one hundred dollars right here that you can count them all on one hand (and, before I pay up, I want documented proof, with detailed budgets). Question: what makes you think that, all of a sudden, unions that have not moved 30 percent of their resources into organizing will now do so?
The point is that the $500 million is just an empty rhetorical pipe-dream—unless the Federation changes the way it operates and comes up with a broad strategic plan that the international affiliates are REQUIRED to implement. Oh, I know, there have been all sorts of screams and moans about “union democracy” and “independence” whenever someone suggests that international unions be forced to behave as a unified movement. Well, yes, democracy is important—but it won’t mean a damn if the movement obliterates itself, partly by throwing around high-minded slogans that mask a “this is my sandbox and I’m going to do whatever I feel in it.”
4. During your administration, you initiated campaigns in Maritime, Apples, Strawberries, HOTROC (New Orleans hotels), BTOP (Las Vegas Building trades) , Kelly Air Force base in TX, and others. Weren’t all those failures? And, if so, why? There is nothing wrong with failing—but if we don’t honestly assess why those campaigns failed, all the new money in the world, thrown into future campaigns, may be just a waste of resources.
5. You claim you are spending 24% of budget on organizing. Is that what you call “program” budget or overall budget? In any case could you please break down where that money went as far as money for campaigns, staff, the Organizing Institute and Voice at Work?
6. Would you say the Voice at Work program is a success or a failure? Related question: since the Employee Free Choice Act has no chance of passing anytime soon (even if, by some miracle, the Democrats recaptured Congress, it would never have the 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate…oh, I forgot, Republicans are now against filibusters), should we keep investing resources and time in this piece of legislation? Again, good people are working hard on V@W but isn’t it time to assess the pros and cons simply to learn if we want to do more of the same?
7. You mention union summer but isn’t it true that you have scaled it back from over 1000 students the first year to less than 150 now? Why?
8. Question: Can you name one major organizing campaign where the AFL support made a difference between winning and losing? Not a single unit but a strategic, industry or as you like to say “sector campaigns” such as all hotels in New Orleans. Again, I ask this question for a simple reason: we need to look very hard at what role the Federation should play, if any, in organizing.
9. Again, on organizing: WWF calls for the creation of a $22.5 million STRATEGIC ORGANIZING CAMPAIGN (the CAPS are in the WWF, I suppose to make clear that we believe in strategy and organizing). According to the proposal the money would be invested based on “tough standards,” and doled out partly in the form of rebates based on applications reviewed by a “panel of retired union presidents.”
Question: wasn’t there already a strategic organizing fund which already was supposed to work based on “tough” criteria but quickly evolved into giving money to any union that asked? Who are the retired presidents proposed for this panel? And should those retired presidents be from unions that showed a commitment to organizing so they can be capable of evaluating what an effective organizing campaign would be?
10. How can an entire document, described as a plan for “Uniting and Strengthening the Union Movement,” not use the word “China” even once?
That’s it for now. Comments and more questions welcome.
