the smedley log - suburban scrawl

Dissension in Labor’s house

Well, the Teamsters, along with the SEIU, have officially announced their departure from the AFL-CIO, a move which is likely to be the jumping off point for the departure of approximately five million members of the labor federation. This means I am no longer affiliated with the AFL-CIO either, as I am also a Teamster.

I’m not sure what I think of this, though I’ve read some interesting thoughts on this in the past day that put a positive spin on the events. One is a MyDD post, wherein Chris Bowers makes an intriguing point about this move not necessarily being so bad for union organizing:

… Unlike our electoral system, the workplace is not a two-party system structurally enforced by a winner-take all system. There is nothing uncommon, nor has there ever been anything uncommon, about unions competing over the same turf. For example, in almost half of the campaigns I worked on for the American Federation of Teachers, our major competition was actually the National Education Association, rather than management. However, when unions compete against each other, it is not necessarily bad for workers, as the competition can sometimes spur a greater amount of new organizing within each union. The UAW and the CIO found this out in the 1930’s. I have never seen a prospective bargaining unit where two unions were competing that ended up not having a union. … (read the full MyDD post)

Chris also offers a past interview with SEIU President Andy Stern, which offers some background on more current happenings.

In addition, TPM Cafe’s House of Labor has a roundup of content pertaining to the breakup of the labor conglomerate, with positions both pro and con.

My understanding is that the Teamsters (and their separatist fellow unions) want to put more resources toward organizing (i.e., creating more union members) as opposed to the AFL-CIO’s emphasis on political support. If so, and given the fact that neither major political party represents well the interests of labor, it would seem to me that it is the Teamsters who have their heads screwed on straight, and AFL-CIO who are resigned toward ever more complete marginalization (a la Revs. Jesse Jackson and Jerry Falwell).

I absolutely agree with that analysis. I’ve long been in favor of putting more emphasis on organizing than on political funding (which often goes into the coffers of Democrats who are usually not much friendlier to labor than their Republican counterparts).

The only catch would be if there’s more of an agenda behind the move (and I’m not saying there is, but these are essentially politicians we’re talking about when we speak of Union officials). In my view, it would be great if unions spent more effort on reaching out to non-union workers than they have in recent history.