ALF-CIO/Teamsters split

[ironman202]

Sweeney is an asshole

[BlakeB]

1. I don't think this split is...

a bad thing at all really. It has the potential to start a big grassroots labor movement. And either way, the Democratic party is likely to get support from both unions.

[snowbear]

4. I don't think it will negatively impact Democrats either..

..or at least from what I've read or seen in the media.. :bounce:

[kevsand]

5. Actually, part of the reason for the split is that

the Teamsters and the SEIU no longer want to support Democratic candidates. Nor do they have any intention of starting any grassroots movements, as their proposed model is for more control from the top down, rather than from the rank and file up.

[snowbear]

6. They don't to confinue to fork out massive amounts of $ period..

They claim it's one of the reasons they're hurting financially.

Democrats will be fine..

[realFedUp]

2. This is ok, find out more here:

http://www.unitetowin.org/

This split won't affect political work.

[kevsand]

8. This is NOT ok, find out more here

instead of relying solely on official SEIU propaganda:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4185521

[TahitiNut]

3. Thank the Quisling Dems.

I believe that no small part of the fracture of the AFL-CIO is the obligatory organizational support that's been proffered to Quisling Democrats who've acted against the very labor interests who've supported the Party.

I just can't imagine what it'd be like being in a labor union and seeing that union provide funds (if even indirectly through the DSCC or DCCC)) to the likes of Zell Miller, Ben Nelson, or even Debbie Stabenow. It'd make me vomit even more frequently.


It seems to me that the DLC says to unions: "I fart in your general direction." When "Democrats" betray working people, they shouldn't expect their support, no matter what the parade of other horribles is.

[Imajika]

10. Actually...

..the worst thing a major special interest group can do is pour all its money, resources and support behind only 1 political party. Over time, the other political party(s) will pay no heed at all to the interests of any group that operates in this manner.

That is where labor finds itself. They bet the house on the Democrats, and the Democrats have lost everything - therefore the labor unions have no support amongst the current ruling party. It is rarely a smart move for interest groups to put all their eggs in one basket.

Take a look at how corporate America allocates its lobbying money. Many, if not most, companies and the PAC's representing them give to both political parties - sometimes in nearly the same amounts. The result? Business/corporate interests are always taken care of by both parties almost all the time.

Oh sure, giving cash to both political parties, and politicians of all stripes regardless of ideology, to achieve your goals is cynical, sleezy and dishonest - but it works. Politics is largely about money and getting elected each cycle - even many Republicans would amazingly discover some organized labor issues worth backing were they to suddenly begin receiving (and depending on) labor union cash and support.

Speaking as a Democrat, I would not like to see any reduction in labor money, organization efforts, and other resources going to the party, but if labor union issues were my only priority - I'd spread the wealth knowing more influence can be bought and achieved this way.

Imajika

[Lone_Wolf]

7. I want my union to join the Federation that fights the hardest...

We'll see in a few months which union will do more than talk. That will be the union a want my local to join.

[Bumblebee]

9. It's a generational thing and stagnant status quo

I don't blame them for wanting to shake it up and spend more energy and money on organizing. These two have been very active unions organizing TAs and staff at universities, among other places. I think it's not a bad development -- plus politicians should earn support, not just assume it's there.

[murdoch]

11. One Big Union

This is a momentous day in the American labor movement. A great day. The American Federation of Labor, one of the worst plagues on the American labor movement, has fallen on its sword. Only 7.9% of non-government jobs are organized, a number which is falling - pretty soon the AFL will have bled to death.

Does anyone remember the Knights of Labor, which pre-dated the AFL? Even the KoL was smart enough to organize industrially, not by trade. The AFL was rotten from day one. It removed union leadership from the rank and file and handed it to pie card labor lieutenants. The AFL-CIO worked internationally to *destroy* instead of build the labor movements in other countries, alongside of Nixon, Reagan and so forth.

Teamsters, SEIU, UNITE...having all of these little fiefdoms, and jurisdictional fights, is completely pointless. Is it a coincidence that a century after the founding of the IWW we have the collapse of the AFL? What we need is ONE BIG UNION. Not Teamsters and UNITE fighting over which fiefdom gets to organize a shop. We need rank-and-file control. We need a union fighting for control of the point of production, not what sell-out will go to Washington DC. You're always better off organizing then the money pit which is elections. The government passed Taft-Hartley over a presidential veto at the height of union power, to think unions can get anything from elections is a joke.

I don't know if the IWW will be revived, or whether an heir of it will take it's place, but this is what we need in the US labor movement. I say this as someone who could be classified as skilled labor or maybe even professional. So that message should be even more appealing to unskilled labor.