So, yes, all of you have written to ask (geez, didn’t know there was that much interest in this meeting) not much happened at the Building and Construction Trades Department meeting (as one participant said, “alot of meaningless resolutions and even more meaningless speakers”). Except that John Sweeney did talk about his concept of “solidarity charters”: that would be kind of an associate membership that allows locals from the unions that left the AFL-CIO (SEIU, Teamsters and the UFCW…with more to come) to continue to belong to the Central Labor Bodies and State Federations. This is a modification from Sweeney’s previous positions, expressed prior to the convention, at the convention and soon after the convention.

UPDATE: I’ve obtained a copy of John Sweeney’s August 10th memo to the Executive Council asking for approval of the Solidarity Charter concept, which outlines the idea and comes along with the EC ballot and talking points.

I know eyelids of our many new readers, many of whom don’t breathe the air of organized labor, might be about to droop closed here but this means something in the world of electoral politics and organizing. So, here’s the very short primer.

If you ask the good labor activists, they will tell you a lot of hot air gets expelled at the national level and the real work gets done locally; a lot of that work gets done through local structures, either central labor councils (CLCs) or state federations. If you’re in the AFL-CIO, any local union (say, your local teachers union or construction workers local) can belong to these local structures and they pay dues to belong.

The truth is that there may only be 50 really crack central labor bodies around the country–out of hundreds. Some of that is because there’s not enough money in CLCs (not all unions belong or, when they belong, don’t pay dues on their entire membership size); some of it is because the CLCs and State Feds are just places that union leaders park themselves (or get parked as a way of moving someone out of real power) with titles but not much energy to do anything.

The single-most constant use of these CLCs and State Feds comes during election campaigns. They often end up, where they are effective, being the centers for coordinating mass phone-banking, canvassing, and get-out-the-vote operations.

So, why are the “solidarity charters” being proposed? The national AFL-CIO was facing a mini-revolt at the local level; Central labor council leaders were pretty openly talking about defying the national AFL-CIO’s edict that local unions from national unions that had disaffiliated from the AFL-CIO had to be kicked out of the local bodies.

From the local point of view, the disaffilations of national unions was just a pissing match between a small group of people and had very little to do with relationships at the local level. CLCs had their own solution. And as recently as this past weekend, I pointed out how New York labor was explicitly continuing to work together, witness the joint appearance at the press conference to condemn the two so-called Democrats Gregory Meeks and Edolphus Towns, both of whom voted for CAFTA (do you think I’m obsessed or what?)

But, if they work, this could be a good step towards keeping the lines of communication open between unions whether they are in the AFL-CIO or not. And it bolsters my view that the language of the “split” could be overdone, if everyone realized, once the harsh words and hurt feelings subsided, that the ultimate challenge is to organize millions of workers and people should not be so focused on what “House” they get organized into. Whatever the reasons for his changed position, Sweeney should get credit for not being stubborn because my guess is that there were more than one or two national presidents who wanted to keep the hard line and boot the disaffiliated locals from here to kingdom come.

There are two issues to watch as we get more details on how these “solidarity charters” will work:

1. While the disaffiliated locals can work with the CLCs or State Feds by paying some dues, they do not get a seat on the CLCs or State Feds governing bodies. We will have to see whether that sits well with local leaders or their national presidents. Yikes, no political power??? You gotta be kidding…

2. The slightly skeptical part of me wonders how much of this proposal is about the AFL-CIO’s crushing deficit created by the departure of the three big unions. It’s not going to close the entire $25-$27 million hole but the “solidarity charters” call for a surcharge on top of the normal dues usually paid that will go to cover costs of services provided by the national unions and the AFL-CIO. I assume some or all of that money will find its way into the national AFL-CIO’s treasury.