I have just been given two letters that were sent to John Sweeney yesterday by Federation workers at 16th Street in the wake of the deep cuts announced two weeks ago. Coming soon after the release of the insurgents new proposal, this cannot help John Sweeney try to stem the vibrations coursing through the AFL-CIO and will feed the perception that his re-election is not a foregone conclusion.

These are bitterly angry letters, accusing the Sweeney Administration of treating the Federation’s workers in a way that, “…we have come to expect from corporate America, not the house of labor. This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by staff who have dedicated their lives to fighting against such behavior.”

Indeed, whatever your position is on the cuts and whether you think that the AFL-CIO has too many staff members, you have to have been blown away by the way in which the Sweeney Administration *potentially* attacked a basic union principle: seniority. Management eliminated the overarching job title “field representative” and created new titles, telling everyone that they would have to apply, no matter how long they had served, for the new titles–and for far fewer positions.

HELLO??? What would any union do if the same thing had been done by a company? For the life of me, I do not understand why every union president on the Executive Council, no matter where they stand on the issue of leadership of the AFL-CIO, does not stand up and demand that the reorganization be overturned just on the basis of the changed job titles. It’s a sleazy way of doing business in a union. Maybe the cuts are justified. Maybe there are legitimate issues about staff performance (which I have no way of judging). But, this is not the union way.

Where does every union president on the Executive Council stand on the question of seniority? I’d like to know.

There are other important issues here, including whether the layoffs had a disparate “impact of people of color and older workers” and whether managers were spared the ax compared to Guild members. I have posted the two letters below (You can get a Word version by going to the News section of the Future of Labor).

=========================================

May 17, 2005

Dear President Sweeney:

We, the undersigned headquarters Guild members, urge you to immediately address the following serious problems that have arisen from the layoff plan announced on May 3, 2005.

Even before the layoffs were announced, the Guild emphasized a set of principles which must be respected in any restructuring process: absolute adherence to our contract and the honored trade union tradition of seniority; shared sacrifice among guild and management; avoidance of any disparate impact on people of color and older workers; and the provision of incentives to help workers leave the payroll with dignity and security.

In our May 5 meeting with you, you personally pledged to address any unfairness in the restructuring and assured us your staff would be in regular communication with our leadership to remedy the many problems we raised. The key problems we identified are:

Seniority: We remain very concerned about the decision to eliminate all field jobs and use the establishment of a new field position to bypass seniority protections in our contract. Our Guild leadership has yet to see even a draft of the new position descriptions. As headquarters members, each of us endorses the letter that field Guild members have sent you on this issue. We pledge not to bid on any new field vacancies until all defunded field members are first offered the jobs according to seniority. We expect all vacant headquarters positions to also be filled according to the strict seniority provisions in Article VI(3)(a) of our contract.

Shared Sacrifice: In Public Policy, nearly all management positions were preserved while nearly all staff positions were eliminated. Such blatantly unequal treatment is unfair and unjustifiable. There may be additional problems in other departments, and contract violations may have occurred if new management positions were created without being first offered to defunded Guild members. Our Guild leadership has still not received the basic information they need to address these issues: a list of new and eliminated management positions, a list of management cushions and transfers, and organizational charts.

Disparate Impact: We are deeply disturbed by any suggestion of discrimination against people of color and older workers. We are very sensitive to the appearance of disparate treatment and targeting in at least a few departments. We demand any evidence you can provide that demonstrates that people of color and senior employees were not impacted disproportionately by the layoff announcements. Despite repeated requests, our leadership has still not received this information.

Incentives: It is impossible for us to plan for our future when we have no additional information on the incentives that may be available to us. Progress on generous incentive packages is crucial given the large number of workers within a few years of retirement who were defunded and the fact that many in our unit are not entitled to any meaningful severance. The failure to move forward on incentives is particularly disturbing in light of the fact that at least one other bargaining unit has already received an incentive offer.

Unfortunately, not one of the above problems has been addressed adequately by your staff in the two weeks since layoffs were announced. We continue to lack even the most basic information about the scope and shape of the restructuring. The fact of such drastic layoffs is itself extremely difficult for our unit to bear – but to deny us the information and input we need to make sure that the process, as painful as it is, is at least fair and transparent, is absolutely unacceptable.

Your management staff must be made to feel that these problems are a top priority for you and the other officers. They must have the resources and capacity they need to remedy these serious problems with speed, competence and diligence.

We have given our lives and our careers to the labor movement, and we expect to be treated as any other union worker we fight for would expect to be treated: with dignity and respect.

Unfortunately, in the past two weeks, we have instead received the kind of treatment we have come to expect from corporate America, not the house of labor. This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by staff who have dedicated their lives to fighting against such behavior.

We call on you to fulfill the pledge you made to us on May 5 and to move forward immediately on each of the serious concerns we have identified.

Sincerely,

See attached signatures from 91 HQ Guild members

cc: Lori Calderone
Cet Parks
Bill Salganik
Pete Catucci
Linda Foley

Morty Bahr

==============================================

May 17, 2005

Dear President Sweeney:

This letter is intended as a follow up to your meeting with the Guild on May 5, 2005. Your staff in the field was stunned that virtually all of our jobs are to be eliminated and we will have to apply for 30 fewer jobs at some undefined point in the future. We are angry. We feel a sense of profound betrayal. We feel our work has not been respected. These changes to our future work are being made with no involvement from us. We are skeptical the goals of the restructuring can be accomplished with so few staff left in the field.

We have not yet been provided any specific information about the new jobs. However, we want to make clear that every one of us is highly qualified and that the new jobs must be filled according to seniority. We will vigorously defend our qualifications for the new jobs. There should also be no unduly restrictive geographic residency requirements that would serve to undermine the principle of seniority.

We were hired into jobs that require a great deal of flexibility and a variety of skills. We have organized and supported organizing in many ways. We have done strategic work with state and central bodies. We have played every conceivable role in political campaigns. We have gone through several restructurings of our work in the field where we were assigned to different priorities. We responded with the utmost of competence and met every challenge. As in any new job or restructuring of duties, there may be a need for orientation and updating of knowledge and skills. This should be provided by the employer and must not be used to exclude any of us from the jobs. We have always operated as a team, complementing and learning from each other. We can do so in any restructuring.

Incentives for retirement and voluntary layoff should be agreed upon soon in order to make transitions smoother and streamline the staff restructuring by reducing the number of people forced to bump or be laid off. The more information we have the easier it will be for us to decide whether we will continue with the Federation or seek other opportunities.

We think this restructuring is unwise, but if you are set to go ahead, then we expect you to treat us with the respect we have earned.

In union,

Field members whose jobs are to be eliminated.