So, folks, the crews have broken down their cameras and the clean-up crews are here at the Laborers International building on 16th Street in Washington, D.C. As I said earlier this morning, the launching of the Change to Win coalition may be a critical moment for the labor movement–or just a modest improvement. At least, today, I’m feeling optimistic that this day may be looked back as a historic one.

Gathered together for three hours prior to the press conference were about 50 leaders from the five unions making up the insurgent faction: SEIU, Teamsters, UFCW, Laborers and UNITE-HERE. During that meeting the leaders passed a constitution and by-laws and, more important, some guiding principles for the coalition. (I will post all documents within 24 hours–I’ve got hard copy but am waiting for several folks to send along e-copy).

In addition to the five presidents–Jim Hoffa (Teamsters), Bruce Raynor (UNITE-HERE), Terry O’Sullivan (Laborers), Andy Stern (SEIU) and Joe Hansen (UFCW)–I saw Dennis Rivera, Monica Russo, Anna Burger, Mary Kay Henry Tom Woodruff, Gerry Hudson (see photo below), Eliseo Medina, Kirk Adams and Judy Scott of SEIU; John Wilhelm (seen here left in photo with Mary Kay Henry) Peter Ward, Edgar Romney and Mark Fleischman of UNITE-HERE; Armand Sabitoni, Bill Bergfeld and Patti Devlin of the Laborers; Ken Hall, Lucio Reyes and John Murphy of the Teamsters; and Susan Phillips, Bob Potters and Will McDonough of the UFCW. That’s only a part of the group. The reason I run some of these names is that they are people, elected leaders and staff, who often don’t get the headlines but have been very active in thinking through the future of labor.

Anyway, the five presidents each made a brief statement to the press. Some excerpts:

Terry O’Sullivan–“Today marks the beginning of the Change To Win Coalition….American workers need a movement that is capable of building real power and true strength for working men and women. We believe that the AFL-CIO as it currently stands cannot lead that movement and that is why we are part of the founding of the Change To Win coalition.”

Jim Hoffa: “We believe we must grow to be effective…” and, then referring to the Teamsters proposal to rebate 50 percent of the AFL-CIO per capitas back to affiliates to spend on organizing, “this group supporters that, the AFL-CIO turned that down.”

Bruce Raynor: “We began something new that believes first of all, that we can win…(based on the principle) of solidarity. Our unions and our members will support each other.”

Joe Hansen: “We’ don’t think throwing more money into the political process and ignoring organizing will get the job done. The status quo can’t stand.”

Andy Stern: “Unity doesn’t happen in buildings or in meetings. It has to happen in workplaces.”

Stern, then introduced Angenita Tanner, a child care worker from Illinois, who was there with her two young children (see photo here). She praised the new effort, hoping that it would lead to a better life for her and her family (the interesting sidelight is that she hails out of the large unit that was recently the subject of a very tough jurisdictional fight between SEIU and AFSCME, which SEIU won).

Then, the press waded in. And, let me tell you, anyone that has been at labor press conferences before would be astounded at the number of press people who showed up: 6 television cameras and about 50 reporters from Reuters, CNN, USA Today, Washington Post, Business Week (well, Aaron Bernstein is one of the stalwarts) and the Associated Press, among others. As one of my colleagues whispered, “when there’s internal struggling (or as I put it “blood in the water”), they come but you think any of them will write or show up if it’s about Wal-Mart?.”

The press was completely pre-occupied with the horse race and the internal power struggle in the AFL-CIO. Not ONE of the questions asked dealt with the reason for the new coalition: can you tell us a little about your organizing plans? But, I guess a press culture that has 2,000 reporters (yes!) covering the Michael Jackson trial would lead to that sad omission.

But, okay, I’ll give you a little dose of the red meat. The offficers of SEIU and the UFCW already have authorization from their boards to disaffiliate from the AFL-CIO (SEIU’s board gave that authorization last week and the UFCW board passed its own resolution yesterday). Bruce Raynor said his board had given the union’s executive committee the power to make such a decision back in March; O’Sullivvan said his board hadn’t given him the authorization because “I haven’t asked for it,” implying that he could get it if needed.

The one piece of real news came in Hoffa’s answer to the questions of disaffiliation. Hoffa said that at the next Teamsters executive board meeting in July, he wIll raise the issue of disaffiliation. That’s the first time he’s made such a public statement on that. What’s significant about that statement is that it’s been widely believed that many of his board members would trample him in a stampede out of the Federation if he signaled a desire to do so.

in terms of whether the unions will disaffiliate before the convention. Stern said, “This organization will exist well beyond Chicago. Every union ahs to make its own decision.” But, whether the insurgents can make any substantive changes at the convention, Stern was fairly realistic, pointing out a statistic that is worth keeping in mind: though the insurgent unions represent about 35 percent of the membership of the AFL-CIO, they have less than 9 percent of the delegates because of the way delegate votes are distributed (for example, every Central Labor Council has one or more votes).

For a number of weeks, the statements from the AFL-CIO have argued that there is very little difference, at this point, between the positions of the two camps (you can look at how they each compare each others proposals in the News section of the Future of Labor Section). This seemed to particularly rankle the folks here. Hoffa: “There idea is to spend more money on politics. We reject that idea.”

O’Sullivan (pictured here with Hoffa standing to his left) ticked off the major differences. On organizing, he said, the Teamsters rebate proposal would put $47 million into the hands of the affiliates to recruit new members; Sweeney’s proposal would invest $15 million. And O’Sullivan underscored the additional insurgent proposal for a $25 million fund to be created within the AFL-CIO for multi-union, large-scale organizing, whereas the AFL-CIO has proposed just $7.5 million.

BOTTOM LINE:

The coalition leaders admit themselves that there is a lot to be worked out with this coalition; there is no elected head, no budget and no staffing. I asked Jim Hoffa about this after the press conference and he talked about the joint effort underway against CINTAS, which is a laundry company that UNITE-HERE is trying to organize. “We’re right in there working with UNITE-HERE on that,” he said. And one of the Teamsters health care funds will no longer pay for perscriptions filled at Wal-Mart, as a way of supporting the UFCW’s campaign against the Beast from Bentonville.

But, my own view is that everyone should look at this coalition as a distinct, independent effort from the fight inside the AFL-CIO. I know that’s hard–and there is no question that the coalition roll-out is designed to put pressure on Sweeney. But, it feels like more than that. Rather than attack the coalition, it would be far better for people outside of the coalition to wish it well, applaud its willingness to at least attempt to try to do something different–in a world where we will be dead if we don’t rapidly change the dynamic in the workplace where workers are under attack every day.

(NOTE: DUE TO SERVER PROBLEMS, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UPLOAD NEW DOCUMENTS FOR NOW. CHECK BACK LATER).