(Slight technical problem delayed our start here today)
As some have noticed, Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers of America, responded yesterday to my post “On Language And Reality.” I’ve known Leo for probably a dozen years or so (maybe longer…his grey cells and mine probably don’t fire as well as they used to). I respect his passion and commitment to the labor movement. Plus, he’s a Canadian…what’s not to like?
I thought I’d respond briefly to his comments, though with a slightly different approach and tone. To make it easier on people so you don’t have to link elsewhere, I’ve posted Leo’s post below my response–you might want to read his first to understand the context of my thoughts.
Leo:
You get no quarrel from me about the various external factors that you cite as obstacles to rebuilding the labor movement: so-called “free trade,” the destruction of the labor laws, the attack on wages–all of which, as you know, I’ve highlighted numerous times, here and elsewhere, as serious challenges to our survival.
But, okay, that’s the real world we face. It seems to me that, then, the question is: what the hell do we do? I made what I thought was a fairly modest observation–the question of the structure of the Federation and who belongs to the Federation is not the central issue. I think you make a similar point.
I, then, argued that the hoo-hah (that’s a technical term) over the specter of “the split” has inflamed so many passions but may be energy misplaced. As I see it, there are two vantage points from which to view “the split.” The first is: does “the split” mean anything to the world outside labor? And I said it means virtually nothing to the day-to-day lives of most workers. I think that is simply a fact–and nothing you said contradicted that point.
The second vantage point is: does it mean anything inside our movement? And, there I also say it’s hard to see why it should matter–with two caveats. First caveat: It’s absolutely true that if one or more unions leaves the Federation, it will have a monetary effect; the axe will have to fall again on an already-smaller budget. But, maybe that would lead to a tougher examination of what roles the Federation should play, with the rest of those roles left to the affiliates.
Second caveat: damaged relationships. I think there’s been a lot of unnecessary harsh words and finger-pointing coming from all sides–and, unfortunately, we lost sight of some of the issues in what began as a deep debate about our future. If every leader, in both camps, as well as people who are on the sidelines, can just get a grip, agree to work with each other no matter what happens, allow non-affiliated unions to continue to belong to AFL-CIO central labor bodies (yes, I think that’s a damn good idea–if non-AFL-CIO unions want to put their money into campaigns, why the hell should some dumb, possibly outdated, rule stand in the way?), then all this “split” stuff will be a hazy memory.
It wasn’t clear to me whether you believe I think labor’s demise is a result of John Sweeney’s leadership or were you referring to the position of the Change To Win unions. I’ll speak for myself: I have consistently, over these many months, argued that the central responsibility lies with the affiliates. I have repeatedly said that the Federation, by its nature, is a weak organization and there is only so much a Federation president can do. I, in fact, have said, if we don’t get an organizing strategy that everyone buys into, it won’t matter who is the president of the Fed. Though I think a strong vision and strategy can compensate for the weakness of the organization…
Which is why I absolutely believe that there has to be an overall movement strategic organizing campaign. You see that as “top-down.” I really am perplexed by your definition. If all the 57 affiliates commit to a plan and hold each other to it, is that not a joint decision, democratically arrived at? Without a strategic organizing plan, what, then, is the point of the Federation? To be a debating society?
Maybe we disagree but I do believe that growth is the central challenge–not growth anywhere but strategic growth–to try to turn back the forces of evil that you so eloquently identify. I am at a loss to understand why that is not obvious. And I am absolutely on record, repeatedly, saying that I don’t believe anyone has figured out how to organize on a mass scale–because it’s not an easy answer.
I also fail to see the relevance of the fact–and let’s just take your assertion at face value–that, save one, all the Change To Win union have lost members. As I see it, the CTW unions are saying, yes, we’re in trouble and we better do something about it. You can disagree with what they propose to do but I think it’s unfair to cast doubt on their legitimacy to advance a plan. You certainly wouldn’t argue that because we’ve gotten our asses kicked in election after election in the past decade (and, should I venture to guess that you and I would agree that even the Clinton years, with Bill’s hard-on for so-called “free trade”, were not a great victory for labor) that Gerry McEntee should no longer have any role in the Federation’s political operation. Or maybe you would. I wouldn’t (even if I disagree about the money that should be invested there–but I won’t digress on that…you can see past posts about that subject).
But, having said that, I appreciate your thoughts and posting–I’d encourage other international presidents or other leaders to feel free to express your thoughts to the large readership of this blog. I hope that we can have vigorous debates–and, after its all said and done, continue to maintain our friendships and collaborations. After all, with the real Axis of Evil marching from the corporate boardrooms, we need each other.
Solidarity,
==============================
Leo’s comments:
These comments are specious on their face. For the writer to say, “I am not pro- or con-disaffiliation” and then in short shrift to conclude…”it doesn’t appear to me that the answer is: The Federation,” is to engage in pure sophistry.
The writer then accepts whole hog the monomaniacal refrain of Sweeney’s antagonists that only organizing a given number of workers is the solution to the problem, as though the challenge is simple mathematics, or more absurdly, that the “solution” lies in a singular commitment to organizing, despite the fact that all but one of the unions opposing Sweeney are losing members, and even the one that is growing is not growing fast enough to stay ahead of job growth in the service sector.
This sophist’s overarching argument boils down to: 1) that the current circumstances faced by union’s attempting to organize are somehow the Federation’s fault for failing to “oblige” (meaning “force”) its affiliates to abide by an “overall organizing plan” (based on the extremely faulty suppositions that a top down plan is desirable and that greater commitment to organizing is enforceable under any circumstances); and, 2) that the real challenge undermining labor’s struggles is behavioral.
Never mind the culture’s growing glorification of individualism and wealth vs collective action and community; never mind the vitiation of labor laws over the past three decades; and, never mind policies like free trade that are little more than a smoke screen for the free flow of capital across borders in pursuit of an overflowing pool of dirt cheap labor! If we would all just realize that the magic bullet is resolving jurisdictional issues, collective action would be magically resurrected as a core conviction of the culture as it was during the Great Depression, jobs would stop being exported overseas by the millions, and — Shazzam! — millions would come flooding into our ranks.
Most absurd in this benighted and somewhat megalomaniacal notion of how the world works is the failure to recognize that, even if more service sector workers are organized, the base of decent wages in this country is determined to a significant extent by industrial workers whose wages are being subjected to severe downward pressure by the nation’s trade policies. How tough is it to connect the dots between the loss of manufacturing jobs in recent years and the flat real wages in the economy at large. Very tough, apparently, for those obsessed with defining the future well being of workers by the structure of “The Federation.”
The growing influence that electronic media have induced in the culture, the sweeping changes in technology and the concomitant changes in the global economy that have given financiers unprecedented power over the interests of workers, coupled with a significant rightward shift in the body politic are all significant factors effecting labor’s well being. To effectively ignore these dynamics by concluding that the core “problem” is John Sweeney’s administration of the AFL-CIO is to live in the parallel universe of your own polemic — which is where most of the so-called “debate” on labor’s future has taken place of late.
Leo Gerard, President
United Steelworkers
