|
|
|
For the first time since one faction of the
AFL-CIO declared war on the other nearly a year ago, Black trade
unionists from across the U.S. and Canada will gather later this
month in an attempt to force the contenders for control of the
labor federation to recognize the interests of African Americans.
“We…have a responsibility to make our voice
heard in the crucial debate taking place now on how to make the
labor movement broader, more powerful and more relevant to the
lives of working families, especially in communities of color,
the fastest growing sector of the labor force,” said Bill Lucy,
President of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists. The CBTU,
with 50 chapters in 50 unions, holds its 34th annual convention
in Phoenix, May 25 – 30, under the theme, “Forging a New Vision
for Tough Challenges Ahead.”
With Big Labor getting smaller all the time,
and the corporate regime in Washington bent on, in TransAfrica
Forum executive director Bill Fletcher’s words, the “annihilation”
of the union movement, the term “tough challenges” seems an understatement.
“They are not talking about simply the reduction of our numbers
or power,” Fletcher told a caucus of Black unionists in April,
“but our total elimination.”
The language of apocalypse and fratricide
dominates labor discussions, as Service Employees International
Union (SEIU) chief Andrew Stern and four allied union presidents,
representing about 40 percent of the AFL-CIO’s membership, ratchet
up their campaign to drastically restructure the labor federation
– or leave it altogether.
"This is not organized labor. This is
disorganized labor," exclaimed the SEIU’s Stern on May 10,
laying labor’s continuing decline at the feet of AFL-CIO President
John Sweeney. The dissidents’ “Unity”
conference, in Las Vegas, hosted by Teamsters chief James Hoffa,
Jr., also included the leaders of the Laborers, United Food and
Commercial Workers (UFCW), and the hotel, restaurant, and laundry
workers' union, Unite Here.
"The American labor movement at the level
of the AFL-CIO has lost its way,” shouted Unite Here president
John Wilhelm, who may be the Stern-Hoffa group’s designated challenger
for Sweeney’s job at the federation’s annual convention, in July.
“It's lost its energy. It's lost its hope. And that's a crime,"
Wilhelm shouted.
The Teamsters' Hoffa railed against “bottom-feeding
unions…like the Machinists that are out there trying to steal
our members from the Teamsters, with lower, sweetheart contracts."
So vitriolic was the rhetoric in Las Vegas, it sometimes appeared
the dissidents were determined to achieve a “unity” of intra-labor
hatred.
The week before the verbal pyrotechnics in
Las Vegas, four of the union presidents – minus the UFCW chief
– demanded that AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington delete their
members’ names from lists
used to coordinate political campaigns. Off the record, aides
to the union presidents complained that the federation was sharing
the lists with Democrats.
In an attempt to mollify the opposition, AFL-CIO
president Sweeney terminated
the jobs of one-third of the headquarters staff – 167 employees.
For them, the Apocalypse had already arrived. But Stern, Hoffa
& Company were unrelenting. Writing in the dissidents’ UniteToWinBlog,
Stern called Sweeney’s firings and other counterproposals “Unite
To Win Lite,” – a pale version of his own 10-point
program – and made plain that he’s out for Sweeney’s head:
”What is crystal clear is
that even if unions representing a majority of members ultimately
agree on a new strategy and structure that will help millions
more workers unite with us, this AFL-CIO leadership team would
not be the right group to carry it out.”
No Labor revival without Blacks
If it sounds like the Sweeney and Stern camps
have reduced Black labor to mere spectators to this very uncivil
war – it’s because that has been both sides' intention.
Sweeney did not consult with labor’s constituency
groups before firing one-third of the federation’s staffers. And
it was under Sweeney that labor’s ethnic and gender constituencies,
including the 33-year-old Coalition of Black Trade Unionists,
were utterly frozen out of participation in the 2004 election
cycle – zero-funded, in favor of 527s and other white-controlled
mechanisms.
Structurally, the opposition’s plans were
perceived by Black labor to be a coup de grace, as BC
wrote in our March
3, 2005 Cover Story, “No Real Labor ‘Reform’ Without Blacks”:
”The SEIU and Teamsters proposals include
nothing resembling formal institutional representation for Blacks,
Latinos, other minorities and women – groups that comprise nearly
three out of five unionized workers. It was specifically to
include underrepresented groups that the AFL-CIO expanded
its Executive Council from 35 to 54 seats in 1995, when John
Sweeney was elected president. A decade later, ‘reformers’ place
part of the blame for labor’s ongoing decline on the size of
the Council, and would centralize power in the hands of consolidated
union chiefs.
”The inevitable perception is that Stern,
Hoffa & Co. believe that the institutional inclusion of
minority and female voices on the Council is at least partially
to blame for labor’s woes. Or is it a case of the key constituents
getting thrown out with the Executive Council bathwater? The
CBTU’s William Lucy would like to know, but he’s not getting
answers. ‘Given the fact that we’ve got millions of workers
to organize, how will our concerns be put on the table? How
will our views be shared in terms of our politicization and
organizing in our communities?’ asked Lucy, who estimates that
close to 30 percent of organized labor is Black.
An early March
meeting of the federation’s Executive Council produced informal
assurances to Blacks that labor’s constituency organizations would
not be shunted aside, and that local structures would be strengthened,
should Sweeney survive the July convention, in Chicago. But the
Stern-Hoffa camp offered no structural mechanisms to non-whites,
only the promise that workers of color would benefit most from
the remake in the long run – the same message that the SEIU’s
Black vice president, Gerald Hudson, conveyed in his February
24 letter to
BC, “Rebuilding the Union Movement to Empower
Communities of Color.”
“We need leaders and activists at all levels
of the union movement who reflect the membership in terms of race,
gender, and other factors,” Hudson wrote – but not a word about
institutional Black and brown representation in the corridors of
union power.
Questions in Stern’s ‘own house’
In the second week of April, the Black caucus
of Andrew Stern’s own union held a conference in Las Vegas – the
first opportunity for AFRAM’s
full leadership to discuss the implications of “reform” since
June of 2004, when the SEIU’s annual convention gave Stern authority
to withdraw from the AFL-CIO if he chose.
A number of papers circulated among the 400
Black caucus delegates, including BC’s March
3, 2005 Cover Story, a paper
by a group that included TransAfrica’s Bill Fletcher, and Black
labor consultant Dwight Kirk’s February
24, 2005 BC article, “Can Labor Go Beyond
Diversity Lite.” Kirk’s article revealed that “55 percent (or
168,000) of the union jobs lost in 2004 were held by black workers”
and “African American women accounted for 70 percent of the union
jobs lost by women in 2004.” Nevertheless, voters of color remain
the most likely to support the AFL-CIO’s “Take Back America” agenda.
Yet “a decade after black trade unionists successfully thrust
color and gender into labor’s last major leadership ‘makeover’
they and their allies are now on the defensive, fighting
to protect past diversity gains from the knives of some new ‘reformers.’”
Bill Fletcher, paired as a Sunday speaker
with SEIU executive vice president Tom Woodruff, delivered a stark
analysis: “Our opponents in business and on the political
Right wish our annihilation. They are not talking about simply
the reduction of our numbers or power, but our total elimination”
In the face of such dangers, the split in labor amounts to “a
train wreck,” said Fletcher, a former AFL-CIO operative:
“The debate has largely taken
place on Mount Olympus as a battle among the gods. There has
been little attempt to engage the membership in a discussion
regarding the future of the union movement. There has been little
attempt to solicit from their members their own ideas…. From my
visits around the country, I have found that local activists feel
both alienated from and scared of this debate. They feel that
it is not about them and does not include them. I would go further
and say that for union members of color, this is especially the
case.”
Fletcher received a standing ovation from
most of the delegates, while Woodruff, who kept largely to Stern’s
10-point program, got polite applause.
Stern did not attend the meeting of his union’s
Black caucus, but emissaries of both warring camps circulated
among the members. Stern’s lobbyists pressed AFRAM to hold back
on any resolution, since the Black caucus could be expected to
express grave concerns about Black constituent clout in the “reformed”
AFL-CIO. Representatives of SEIU leadership passed the word that
elimination of constituent representation and funding was “off
the table” – but this is a war of positioning, and it remains
unclear what “off the table” means.
On the morning of Monday, April 11, while
the AFRAM conference was still underway in Las Vegas, Andrew Stern,
Woodruff and other senior SEIU officers posted a letter on the
UnitedToWinBlog, in response
to Dwight Kirk’s research on the decimation of Black union workers:
”Brother Kirk finds facts
like these missing from the debate over labor’s future. ‘Diversity,’
he writes, ‘has become a flabby catch-all term, no longer a form
of empowering people who have been disenfranchised in this society.’
”We agree. And that’s one reason why our union is so committed
to real change to give working people new strength and unity so
that we can win real raises, health care, and dignity on the job.”
The letter descends further into what is now
SEIU boilerplate: “A deliberate policy promoting real empowerment,
not just symbolic diversity, has changed our [SEIU] International
Executive Board so that it is 40 percent female (compared to 56%
of our membership) and 33 percent people of color (compared to
34% of our membership) – no cause to rest on our laurels, but
real progress.”
In other words, trust our example (and our
numbers), but don’t expect structural inclusion in the New AFL-CIO.
Wall of White Noise
“Let me say that it would be a serious ‘omission’
for any of the sincere and articulate advocates of reform to assume
what is in the best interest of black trade unionists and the
coalition partners with whom we work regularly,” said CBTU president
Bill Lucy, as he prepared for the organization’s May 25 – 30 convention,
in Phoenix. Embattled AFL-CIO chief John Sweeney and Rev. Jesse
Jackson are scheduled to speak at the affair.
Blacks confront an environment in which elements
of both white male-dominated labor camps appear to believe
that minority constituency representation, and empowerment of
largely Black and brown big city labor councils, is something
the New AFL-CIO can do without. At times, this attitude is manifested
in pure racial arrogance, immediately recognizable to all African
Americans.
In early May, the SEIU’s white Secretary-Treasurer,
Ann Burger, shot off a letter that must rank among the worst racial
indiscretions committed by union officials in recent years.
“The SEIU is expressing our displeasure that
the Congressional Black Caucus is giving Wal-Mart an opportunity
to fashion a false image that they are friends of African Americans
and working people generally,” wrote Burger. Wal-Mart is currently
on a public relations and lobbying offensive, courting constituencies
all over Capitol Hill, including the Black Caucus. It is true
that a growing minority in the Caucus is open to contributions
and propaganda from Wal-Mart, the evil engine of America’s – and
the world’s – race to the bottom. (See BC, April
28, 2005 and May
12, 2005.) But the SEIU’s broadside at the Caucus as a whole
was so ill-aimed, it was inevitably perceived as racist or incompetent
– or both, as the newspaper The
Hill reported:
“It’s really an attempt to
put CBC members in their place,” said Lanier Avant, chief of staff
to Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.).
“No group of members of Congress has a stronger labor record than
the CBC and for this kind of letter to go strictly to black lawmakers
is a slap in the face,” he said, noting that four CBCers have
perfect voting records with the AFL-CIO and another 21 are above
the 95 percent mark.
In other words, the white leadership of the
SEIU doesn’t know how to talk to Black people. It is such arrogance,
almost as much as the depredations of the Bush regime, that may
be the death of organized labor in America.
Labor’s color line
Even as unions struggle to respond to forces
bent on their annihilation, they remain deformed by racism – the
same plague that has crippled the U.S. labor movement at every
stage in its history. Black workers, the most enthusiastic “joiners”
and activists, also face the most dire consequences of labor’s
historical weaknesses. Yet, too often, their white comrades –
including those who proudly consider themselves “progressives”
– seek “solutions” to labor’s problems at Black workers’ institutional
expense. Labor, not so big anymore, has to get its mission straight,
as the CBTU’s Bill Lucy pointed out, in January:
“We would strongly suggest
that the Federation leadership resist the call to reduce the size
of the Executive Council. The added size of the Council bears
no relationship to the decline in labor fortunes. Those who suggest
that its size affects the ability to have substantive debate,
to a degree reflect our overall problem. We do not believe labor’s
problem revolves around structure. We believe to the extent we
have a problem, it is around mission.
”If we define our mission, our mission will dictate the necessary
structure. While the composition of the Executive Council may
be large, it reflects who we want to organize, mobilize and politicize.
As we talk about these issues as well as global solidarity, to
turn inward and return to the structure that existed when the
movement went into decline strikes me as unwise and unworkable
in terms of our fundamental goals.”
Three principles should guide labor’s deliberations:
The Big should not dictate to the Small. White men should not
dictate to people of color and women. And local struggles should
not be subordinated to top-down union management.
In the New AFL-CIO envisioned by some, top-down
union management will also be near lilly-white. That’s what got
us into this mess, in the first place.
|
|
|
Your comments are always welcome.
Visit the Contact
Us page to send e-Mail or Feedback
or Click
here to send e-Mail to [email protected]
If you send us an e-Mail message
we may publish all or part of it, unless you tell us it
is not for publication. You may also request that we withhold
your name.
Thank you very much for your readership.
|
|
|