Still trying to catch up the brain from a week of not enough sleep so this weekend my ramblings might come a little later in the a.m.–and, if that isn’t enough, I have to crank out a little opus on the convention for New Labor Forum…by Monday…

First, a welcome to Reece–I’m always encouraging new posters to wade in…it helps broaden the debate and brings in new prespectives. So far, the tone has been generally respectful so c’mon in the water’s fine.

Just to answer a few points from yesterday’s post on the UFCW’s joining the emerging new Federation (and you can read UFCW President Joe Hansen’s statement or read the short piece today by Steven Greenhouse in The New York Times–registration required)–

Award for better math to Anon for noting that, yes, the Federation has now lost one-fifth of its projected budget, not one-quarter…math was never by strong suit, especially after averaging three hours of sleep a night for a week. Still, a huge hit–and likely to get bigger as the leaves start turning in the Fall.

A minor point but Steve is right–I never said the Teamsters wouldn’t leave. I was just being cautious about the question of “when”–partly because the Teamsters were debating it internally. I think I also said many times the UFCW would leave by the end of the week but I won’t brag about that…I just had more concrete info. And, by the way, I’m always prepared (as I have in two instances) to publish right on the front page (as opposed to the mainstream media) corrections of any documented mistakes…but I’m going to set a standard that you cannot be anonymous for that. Bring it on.

I don’t think the Wal-Mart campaign gets hurt. What’s going to be interesting is: what is the AFL-CIO’s commitment on Wal-Mart now that the UFCW is gone? You can check this out but, before SEIU and the UFCW started talking about a joint campaign on Wal-Mart in May 2004, I don’t think you can find much about that idea in materials or rhetoric coming from the Federation. Then, boom, challenged by others, almost every speech contained a reference to Wal-Mart.

And “not an AFSCME staffer” is right and I will give credit: the Federation did step up to the plate, committing a million bucks and hiring a staffer, Ellen Moran, to coordinate its work. In particular, the AFL-CIO was interested in playing a role in the formation of a non-union workers association–that’s the project my good friend and crack organizer Wade Rathke is all over.

A digression: this is an interesting example to make a larger point. SEIU and the UFCW forced the Federation to respond on Wal-Mart–I chuckled when the bidding kept going higher, with Stern saying back when that the AFL-CIO should create a $25 million fund to fight Wal-Mart…and John Sweeney saying that $25 million might not be enough (damn, I wish we owned a money printing press…which the Fed could sure these days). But…there’s nothing wrong in being goaded into action. And I still believe that the creation of the Change To Win coalition and the disaffiliations that are rocking the institution might not be pleasant for the AFL-CIO–but ultimately might prove its salvation if it shocks it into a make-over and rejuvenation.

Back to our Wal-Mart saga: Well, soon after the AFL-CIO Executive Council met in Vegas back in March, Ellen quit to go work for Emily’s List. I think she had a bad feeling about her job security–no one really could tell what role the AFL-CIO would want to play once the dust settled after the convention.

Now, it seems to me to be a tough choice. Given the disaffiliation of the UFCW and the looming budget disaster, does the AFL-CIO step back from the Wal-Mart campaign? Or has it put out so much anti-Walmart rhetoric out there (not to mention printed up all those cool bumperstickers and less-cool propoganda) that it has no choice to stay with it? I mean, a logical conclusion might be that the AFL-CIO and its remaining affiliates have plenty of big honker targets out there so why mess with Wal-Mart.

And, who knows, I had heard rumors–and it is a possibility–that the Teamsters and UFCW might end up merging. The combo makes sense: the stuff getting to grocery stores and other retails outlets comes in on trucks.

So, who goes next? I think UNITE HERE will leave as soon as it resolves a significant organizing issue. I’ve been told what that is in confidence but asked not to write about it. The Amalgamated Bank issue is significant but I don’t think that’s what’s holding back the disaffiliation (I mean, it still will be the only labor bank. Do you think the disaffiliated unions are going to tell all its members to stop using Cingular Wireless just because CWA has been promoting that company as union-friendly?).

I sense the Laborers will leave by the Fall, in time for the Change To Win coalition’s founding convention on September 27th. But, I’m not 100 percent positive. More when I know for sure.

Victoria’s two comments made me muse on two points as a wrap up to this post. She’s right–the past staff cuts were not pretty and were handled badly, in my humble opinion. Let’s hope that the next round that is almost certain to come will be handled better. One step might be for Bob Welsh, Sweeney’s chief of staff, to actually bring in the Newspaper Guild and OPEIU into the conversation a little earlier and explain the logic of whatever staff reorganization is done.

And her other comment made me harken back to an earlier pre-convention post in which I mused about whether the language of the “split” really was overdone. Inside the convention hall on the last day, one comment struck me the most–here, the speaker asserted, is the American labor movement. Well, I think the movement is much bigger than an institution and, certainly, as the number of disaffiliated unions grows, the AFL-CIO may end up a smaller Federation than whatever else is created. Rather than worry about size and exceptionalism, maybe the better course of action is to simply ask: what should we do?