Disorganized Labor (AFL-CIO transform — or get out of the way )

[papau]

Is the New Unity Partnership (collapse 60 unions to 20 mega unions) a disagreement over strategy - or a takeover attempt by a group of elitist intellectuals that talk down to the rest.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-hurd1dec01.story
COMMENTARY
Disorganized Labor
By Richard Hurd
Richard Hurd is a professor of labor studies at Cornell University.

December 1, 2004

When the AFL-CIO executive council gathered in Washington several weeks ago to assess the damage in the wake of President Bush's reelection, it was not the organization's president, John Sweeney, who grabbed the headlines, but Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union.

Stern, who eight years ago succeeded Sweeney at SEIU, chose this opportunity to turn up the heat on his mentor. Arguing that the future of the labor movement is in peril and that the AFL-CIO is an antiquated body unprepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century, Stern and a group of like-minded union leaders pressed for a dramatic makeover in labor's structure and strategic priorities. Their insistence that the AFL-CIO must be transformed — or must get out of the way — has outraged old-time, tradition-bound unionists and has ignited an internal feud that threatens to split the movement into warring factions.

These are difficult times for labor, and not just because of the election. The union share of the workforce has dropped to 8% in the private sector, the lowest level in 100 years and less than one-fourth of the post-World War II peak. Industrial unions have suffered under the weight of globalization, while their counterparts in transportation, communications and utilities have been weakened by deregulation. On top of this, labor faces an inhospitable legal environment made worse by an antagonistic president and Congress.

Stern and his colleagues in what they're calling the New Unity Partnership argue that the growing crisis requires an aggressive response — including not just massive reallocation of resources into recruitment of new members but substantial restructuring as well. They have proposed collapsing the nation's 60-plus unions into no more than 20 powerful mega-unions, each with a clearly defined industry focus. This presumably would allow labor to translate growth directly into power within a market, in contrast to the current arrangement in which unions have multiple jurisdictions and often compete with each other for new members.

Stern has also suggested that the AFL-CIO's authority over its affiliates should be strengthened in order to orchestrate the mergers, and even to shift units from one union to another. This proposal has angered those labor leaders who embrace the tradition of national union autonomy on strategic issues related to bargaining and organizing. The International Assn. of Machinists has even authorized its president, R. Thomas Buffenbarger, to withdraw from the AFL-CIO if Stern's proposals are adopted.<snip>

[primavera]

1. Sounds reasonable

I'm afraid I know very little about union structures, but it makes intuitive sense to me that there would be strength in numbers, so consolidating would seem to be a logical move. Isn't that esentially why unions form in the first place, on the principle that 1,000 workers carry more weight in negotiations with management than a single worker can? So why are the machinists all hot and bothered by this? No matter what compromises might go along with becoming part of a larger group, can they have any serious doubt that they'll be less than those associated with losing to the administration's campaign to restore feudalism and serfdom?