We Are The Union?

This article is in the May/June 2014 edition of the Union Democracy Review. You can become a subscriber here: 

http://aud2.uniondemocracy.org/pubs

WE ARE THE UNION?

By Joseph Riedel

The Oxford dictionary describes a labor union as, “An organized association of workers, often in a trade or profession, formed to protect and further their rights and interests.” Labor unions were born out of the struggle and common purpose of the working class in order to protect and advance the collective interest of the workers. This struggle was, and is fueled by the fact that the interests of the workers is often quite different than the interests of management.

But what if the group of workers are the actual staff of the union itself? This is the unique situation that staff unions find themselves in. Staff unions might very well be the only labor entity whose interests are simultaneously identical and opposite of the interests of management.

Origin of Staff Unions

Staff unions are by no means a recently developed phenomenon in the labor movement. The origins of staff unions in the United States dates back to at least 1951, when the Labor Management Relations Act(LMRA) was deemed by the National Labor Relations Board(NLRB) to be applicable to unions as employers in the case of the staff of the Airline Pilots Association(ALPA).

This was followed by several cases and appeals until the matter of unions as employers under LMRA was settled by the Supreme Court in 353 US 313. In its ruling, the court asserted that when unions find themselves in the role of employer, the Taft-Hartley Act “Applies to its operation just as it would to any other employer.”

With their status as employers established, several unions, as well as the AFL-CIO itself contested the status of union staff as employees under the act. In 1958, the AFL-CIO fought against an organizing petition filed by the Field Representatives Federation to represent organizers and field representatives. In 120 NLRB 969, the AFL-CIO argues that it would be “Contrary to the best interests of the labor movement for the AFL-CIO to recognize a union of its organizers.” The NLRB rejected the Federation's arguments and ordered an election. The AFL-CIO complied with the ruling and has engaged in collective bargaining since that time. The current position of the AFL-CIO according to their Communications Department is that they “Strongly support staff unions.” Staff at federation headquarters are covered under contracts with several unions including OPEIU, CWA, and IBEW, among others.

Aside from the aforementioned arguments over whether the union is an employer, and that union staff are employees under the law, another early argument used by unions in opposition to staff unions was that staff unions are not actually labor organizations at all. Such was the claim made by the Retail Clerks International Association in 1965 in its opposition to the organizing efforts of the Agents and Organizers Association(AOA). The RCIA also raised the claim of dual unionism as a disqualifying factor for employment. Although this claim was dismissed by the NLRB(RCIA vs. NLRB), it has been used by the United Mine Workers, as well as other unions in opposition to staff organizing campaigns.

It should be noted that not all unions fought the desire of their staff to engage in collective bargaining. After the Union of Airline Pilots Association Employees(UALPAE) was chartered in 1951, several unions, including the International Union of Electrical Workers(IUE), Newspaper Guild, and AFSCME all voluntarily recognized staff unions representing their employees.

 
However, not all early efforts ended in eventual recognition by union management. In 1960, the Federation of Union Representatives(FOUR) petitioned for an election involving some 260 organizers employed by the International Ladies Garment Workers Union(ILGWU). Instead of complying with the NLRB ruling in FOUR's favor, as well as the subsequent election results in favor of the staff union, the leadership of ILGWU refused to recognize the results of the election and instead of bargaining with FOUR, chose to pursue its case to the US Court of Appeals. After lengthy court battles with ILGWU management depleted their resources, FOUR disbanded in 1966 without ever settling a contract.

In some cases, union management have chosen to bypass legal challenges in favor of outright refusal to comply with the National Labor Relations Act(NLRA), committing Unfair Labor Practices that they are usually fighting against in order to decimate organizing efforts. The American Guild of Variety Artists in 1967, and Machinists District 8 in 1965 are two notable examples.

After the early battles between staff unions and some union management, relationships between staff unions and labor leadership settled into a fairly copacetic period in which staff unions continued to grow and coexisted with management in an environment mostly free from the public strife of the 1960's. There were a few exceptions, such as the 1986 strike by the employees of the Food and Allied Services Trade Department(FAST). This resulted in several AFL-CIO officials being placed in the awkward situation of having to cross the picket line.

 
"In 1976, Steve Early, now a labor journalist and author of Save Our Unions, was editing the daily proceedings of the United Mine Workers(UMW) Convention at which the union's national officers were directed to cease all negotiations on a first contract with a headquarters staff union formed just the year before. UMW lawyers sought to excise this action from the official record of the convention because, as Early notes, “the several thousand delegates were committing a mass unfair labor practice, probably the most blatant by any union, acting as an employer, since passage of the Wagner Act.” After the UMW's 1976 convention, negotiations with the union's professional staff were never concluded; the unionization effort petered out as many original bargaining unit members, like Early, a UMW Journal staffer, and now AFL-CIO president Rich Trumka,then a UMW lawyer,left their headquarters jobs for employment elsewhere."

UUR Members Picketing SEIU Headquaters

  

Purple Problems

While there is no shortage of examples of friction in recent years between staff unions and union leadership, the most public clashes have been within SEIU. In 2007, the staff of SEIU Local 1, which is represented by the Teamsters, went out on strike over low wage levels. There have also been high profile cases of staff unions openly disagreeing with union leadership over the direction of the organization. In May, 2008, the Union of Union Representatives(UUR), which represented around 200 International staff at SEIU passed a unanimous resolution announcing their opposition to their members being used in the internal conflict between the leadership of SEIU and SEIU-United Healthcare West. The resolution stated, “In accordance with our contract, UUR members should not participate in work that interferes with the ability of UHW-West members to express their opinions on issues that concern them.” SEIU leadership subsequently pushed through an amendment at its convention to reallocate organizing resources to various Locals, which UUR is barred by its contract from organizing. In early 2009, SEIU announced it would layoff 75 of the 210 members of the UUR bargaining unit.

In 2011, after two previous failed attempts, the staff of SEIU/District 1199 WV/KY/OH were able to gain recognition of their staff union. Staff Union 1199 was successful in negotiating their first contract, but less than two years later, management ran a successful campaign to decertify the staff union in late 2013, dismissing some of the pro-union staff members the very day the staff union was decertified. (full disclosure: the author was a charter officer of Staff Union 1199)

Even the oldest staff union in the United States, UALPAE has had recent friction with management. In 2011, the NLRB ruled that ALPA committed Unfair Labor Practices alleged by the staff union when it implemented unilateral changes before reaching impasse.

 
Staff Unions are not a phenomenon strictly limited to the United States. According to Derek Blackadder, Regional Director for the Canadian Union of Public Employees(CUPE), staff unions are very common in Canada. Andrew Casey, a LabourStart correspondent based in Australia, informed me that the Australian Services Union represents union staff as well. There are also forms of staff unions in the United Kingdom and India as well, but they seem to follow a system used by the United Steelworkers in which staff are members of the parent union, so that everyone is a card-carrying member.

Progressive or Regressive?

So if union staff are indeed workers just as the members they represent are workers, how do they serve the interests of their members, as well as their own best interest at the same time? What purpose in the labor movement as a whole can they serve? Are staff unions a progressive or regressive force in the labor movement? To gain some insight into these questions, I reached out to Bill Fletcher, longtime labor activist and educator, as well as the author of Solidarity Divided, and the recently released “They're Bankrupting Us!” And 20 Other Myths About Unions. On the question of the role staff unions can play in the labor movement, Fletcher responded that they have the ability to be both a positive and negative force. They can be a positive force by being “Partners for change, working with elected leaders to help change the direction of the organization as well as stopping arbitrary conduct of some leaders.” Fletcher also cautioned that there exists the possibility to be a negative force by “Freezing ways of doing work even if it doesn't serve the purpose of the union.”

While there are certainly a variety of positions regarding exactly how staff unions fit into the labor movement, a consistent sentiment expressed by everyone contacted for this article was the necessity of staff unions. Fletcher, who identified himself as a strong supporter of staff unions, expressed the reason staff unions are necessary is that “In any organization that is cause driven, there is a tendency to treat the staff as almost disposable quantities, and it is OK to burn them out in service to the cause.” Since the beginnings of organized labor in the United States, one simple philosophy has united labor organizations of every kind. As I used to hear J. David Cox, President of the American Federation of Government Employees(AFGE) say: “If you've got a boss – you need a union.” It should not matter who the boss is.

If labor unions are to remain the vanguard of the working class, it is imperative that they remain true to the ideals of the labor movement, both in theory, as well as in practice. All members should look at their union and ask, which side are you on?

Leading By Example On Income Inequality

The leadership of the labor movement has finally gotten on board with the notion that beating the drum on income inequality is striking a chord with the populist trend that has been growing with the general public in the last year or two.

This is a smart move, but there is a downside to this strategy for many unions: the income inequality that exists in their own organizations. For instance, here are a few of the leadership salaries of some of the most well known unions in the United States:

Richard Trumka(AFL-CIO) -$298,542
James Hoffa(Teamsters) - $ $381,409
Randi Weingarten(American Federation of Teachers) - $543,150
Lee Saunders (AFSCME) - $350,058
Donald Moak(Airline Pilots Association) - $627,796
Robert Buffenbarger(Machinists) - $319,667
Edwin Hill(IBEW) - $400,968
Terence O'Sullivan(LIUNA) - $663,981
*Special Recognition to LIUNA for having ten officers making over $300,000
Mary Kay Henry(SEIU) - $295,870


I'll be the first to point out that these salaries are not even in the same universe as the outlandish corporate CEO levels out there.  That's not the point I'm making here.  While I'm not opposed to union officials making a good living, could anyone imagine Big Bill Haywood, Mother Jones, or Joe Hill taking home over half a million dollars a year?

I don't think so.

The labor leaders of the past we regard as heroes were true believers in the cause. They were leftist, usually broke, often arrested, some were deported, and some were even killed for the cause.

With salaries so much higher than that of the average member of their respective unions, labor leaders run the risk of looking more like the Chamber of Commerce than Big Bill Haywood, Joe Hill, and Mother Jones.

The leaders of the labor movement have an opportunity to lead by example by voluntarily capping their own pay, and investing that money in new organizing campaigns to grow the movement.  Think of the contrast to the excess and greed of corporate America this action would demonstrate to the American public.

In Solidarity,

Joseph Riedel

What Unions Must Understand To Organize The South

It seems that since UAW's defeat at the VW plant in Chattanooga last week, big labor has finally decided to embrace the task of organizing the South.  The situation at VW drew a lot of media attention, although none of it came close to the on the ground reporting of In These Times' Mike Elk.  (You can read his in depth dissection of UAW's missteps and the outright sabotage from conservative groups and politicians here. )  Elk did a fantastic job of showing how the anti-union political culture coupled with the top-down management style of the UAW created a perfect storm of sorts.  However, I believe that Chattanooga was just one of countless situations in the south that could have happened on any given day in any southern city.

While you can surely point to mistakes in the way unions handle specific campaigns, I believe that big labor has failed that the reason their efforts have been largely fruitless in the south has much more to do with a fundamental lack of understanding of culture and social class in the south than it does with strategy.  Allow me to throw a few suggestions that the labor movement could implement to truly make a push to organize the South:

1. Train Rank-and-File Organizers from the South - I started noticing 7-8 years ago that unions were heavily recruiting organizers fresh out of college rather than from the rank-and-file.  While there is definitely a technical aspect that comes along with organizing, especially understanding labor law, sending in a field organizing staff that is comprised almost entirely of college grads will not amount to a hill of beans in the rural south.  Have you ever heard the term "carpetbaggers"?  The folks I grew up with are more likely to trust health advice from their pastor than their doctor, which is why I have pushed Salting as a viable organizing strategy in the past.

2.  Stop Wasting Money On Hopeless Political Races - I attended the first Next Up Workers' Summit a few years ago, and I used my only time at the podium to direct a statement at Richard Trumka that if he was serious about organizing in the south, that it would be a better use of PAC funds to spend on local school board races, etc to influence things like teaching trades in school and woring with trade unions.  This brings me to my next point.

3. Push For More Building Trade Education in High Schools -  Trades have always been popular in the South, and labor could utilize that to train a generation of pro-union tradesmen.  The organization is already there, and many schools are open to working together to develop apprenticeship programs.

4. Invest More Resources in Community Groups Like Jobs With Justice -  Why do I like Jobs With Justice so much?  Because they build coalitions, and that's what it takes to win a union election in hostile territory.  As Mike Elk pointed out so well, one of UAW's biggest blunders was not working with community groups.  If labor takes the time to build up JwJ chapters in the South, and really pushes the Student Labor Action Project(SLAP) on southern college campuses, the benefits could be enormous.

These are just a few suggestions to start off with.  We can keep plugging away with the same strategies that don't play well with southern culture, or adapt our message to fit the audience.  The South can be organized, but it must be homegrown.

In Solidarity,

Joseph Riedel

The Labor Movement's 1%?

Amid the speeches and rallies at the AFL-CIO Convention this past week in Los Angeles, there were many resolutions passed, as well as a handful of amendments to the AFL-CIO constitution.  Most of the resolution and amendments were what you would expect from a labor convention.  There were resolutions opposing efforts to privatize the Tennessee Valley Authority, as well as one supporting the American Labor Museum.  There was also an amendment recognizing the role of young workers with a seat on the Executive Board.

Then there was Constitutional Amendment 11.

Here is the amendment in its entirety:

Submitted by the Executive Council

 Referred to the Constitution Committee

Article V, Section 5 is amended as follows (New language in bold and italics)
Section 5

(a) The President, Secretary-Treasurer, and Executive Vice President, or any one of them, after having served five years as an Executive Officer of the Federation and either having reached age 65 or having served in any capacity a total of 20 years with any organization affiliated with the Federation, and/or with the Federation, shall, upon leaving office, have the title of President Emeritus or Emerita, Secretary-Treasurer Emeritus or Emerita and Executive Vice President Emeritus or Emerita and shall render such service to the Federation in an advisory and consultative status as is mutually agreed to by the Executive Council and the emeritus or emerita officer.

(b) The President Emeritus or Emerita, Secretary-Treasurer Emeritus or Emerita and Executive Vice President Emeritus or Emerita shall, in consideration of their active service prior to leaving office, be afforded for life a pension, payable weekly, in an annual amount equal to 60 percent of either the highest annual salary received as an Executive Officer or thereafter paid to the corresponding Executive Officer, whichever is greater. If, after attaining eligibility for this pension, such Executive Officer shall die, either before or after receiving such pension, the Officer’s surviving spouse shall be paid an annual annuity for life, payable in weekly installments, of 30 percent of either the highest salary received by such Executive Officer, as an Executive Officer, or thereafter paid to the corresponding Executive Officer, whichever is greater. The Executive Council is authorized and directed to enter into a legal and binding agreement with the President, the Secretary-Treasurer, and the Executive Vice President to make these retirement compensation and annuity benefits payable by the Federation for their intended duration pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Section. The Executive Council is also authorized to provide, after such benefits become non-forfeitable, for (1) the cash-out of a portion of these retirement compensation and annuity benefits (through accelerated payment of the present value thereof) where the officer will be subject to taxes on the value of benefits not yet otherwise payable, and (2) appropriate arrangements, including payment by the Federation, for payment of employment taxes attributable to these retirement compensation and annuity benefits. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Executive Council is authorized to modify or eliminate the benefits provided in this section. 

When I first read this amendment, I didn't really think anything of it.  After all, I am all in favor of pensions, as just about anyone in the labor movement is.  The crisis around Social Security has far more to do with companies reneging on employee pensions than it does about baby boomers - but I digress.

When I really started to dig into the language of this amendment, I began to realize just how tone deaf the leadership of the labor movement has become.  The amendment awards pension in the amount of 60% of the officeholder's highest grossing year after 5 years on the Executive Council, or 20 years with any affiliated labor organization.  This also increases any time a current officeholder's salary is increased in order to keep up with inflation.

This happens to work out great for Richard Trumka, who served three terms as the president of the United Mine Workers of America(UMWA).  Given his length of time as an officer with UMWA, he almost certainly is eligible to draw a pension from that organization.  Now he is eligible to draw a pension from the AFL-CIO that as of 2012 would pay him an estimated $166,000 annually for life.

It works out even better for Secretary-Treasurer Liz Shuler.  According to the amendment, an officer becomes eligible for the lifetime pension when they either reach retirement age, or their total service time with affiliated labor organizations reaches 20 years.  Guess which year Liz Shuler took her first staff job with the IBEW?  That's right, 1993.  I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, but you have to admit that's one hell of a coincidence.  I'm 33, and Ms. Shuler is not all that much older than I am.  She could decide to leave the AFL-CIO tomorrow, and under this new amendment, she would collect roughly $146,000 a year.  This is remarkable since she easily has 15-20 years before she is retirement age.

At a time when the AFL-CIO is out railing against the 1%(and rightfully so) and the inequality of wealth in the workplace, it seems unfathomable that they would pick this moment to make the divide between the rank and file union member and their leadership even wider.  To do so in such a public fashion is even more stunning.  This sort of excess harms the labor movement and does little to dispel feelings among the average worker that their union leadership is out of touch with the day-to-day struggle in the shop.

The bottom line is that while there shouldn't be an issue with our leaders being fairly compensated - that's what we're fighting for after all - but it should be done in a common sense way that is not excessive.  

Maybe next convention someone will have the good sense to introduce an amendment inspired by the United Electrical Workers(UE) that restricts the salary of the national president to the same level of the highest dues paying member.  Given the diversity of the workers in the house of labor, they'd still be doing pretty well for themselves.

In Solidarity,

Joseph

Change to Win - An Island of Two?

Mike Elk scored a huge scoop this past weekend, reporting that UFCW will vote to rejoin the AFL-CIO after its upcoming convention in August.

You can read Mike's full story at In These Times.

When I covered LIUNA's decision to return to the AFL-CIO back in 2010, I interviewed James Williams, President of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades(IUPAT) to get his opinion on LIUNA's return.  One of my main inquiries was regarding whether the AFL-CIO should require LIUNA to pay back per capita as a condition of rejoining the federation.  My feeling back then was that not requiring some form of repayment would make it attractive for unions to leave the federation to avoid per capita for a time if they ran into financial trouble.  The union could then hypothetically rejoin the AFL-CIO without any penalty.

As Mike Elk reports in his story,

Details of the negotiations between the UFCW and AFL-CIO are unknown at this time. However, inside sources say the AFL-CIO is likely to offer the UFCW some sort of deal, such as a discount on dues, as motivation to rejoin.

I understand that having UFCW back in the fold is more important o the AFL-CIO than some back per capita taxes, but it doesn't exactly set a good precedent going forward.

The larger implication for the labor movement is that Change to Win can't really be looked at as a labor coalition or federation anymore.  However, I am floating a few new name ideas for the two remaining unions.  How about Steamsters, or SEI-2.  They could make t-shirts saying Purple and Black Attack.

Although the return of UFCW will certainly get people wondering if SEIU and the Teamsters will rejoin the AFL-CIO, I don't foresee that happening any time soon, with different reasons for each organization.

The departure of the Teamsters was almost entirely about two things: 1) money and 2)money. Also 3)Article 20.  The Teamsters are in deep with their pension plan, and I don't see them willingly adding more per capita taxes when they don't even have a way to pay for their own pension fund 20 years from now.  They also still like to raid other unions, which Article 20 prohibits.  It would be something to see the Machinists and Teamsters under the same roof again.

I could actually picture SEIU coming back to the AFL-CIO before the Teamsters.  SEIU has the money for per capita, and rejoining the AFL-CIO could be used as a strategic way of blocking the National union of Healthcare Workers(NUHW) from organizing more members, as NUHW is now affiliated with CNA, and therefore subject to Article 20, which prohibits raiding other AFL-CIO member unions.

However this hashes out, this will be an interesting year in the House of Labor.

In Solidarity,

Joseph

The Return of LIUNA: What This Really Means for the Building Trade Unions of the AFL-CIO

Solidarity. That was the message AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka sent in a statement welcoming the Laborers’ international Union of North America (LIUNA) back into the fold, after the organization announced on August 13, 2010, that it will rejoin the AFL-CIO, effective October 1, 2010. In his statement, Trumka said,

“We are very happy that LIUNA is rejoining the AFL-CIO at a critical moment for working people…LIUNA brings a proud history and dedication to the union movement and we are delighted to welcome them back to the AFL-CIO.”

Aside from the expected kumbaya moment where labor leaders flaunt terms like Solidarity and Coalition Building, what does LIUNA’s return to the AFL-CIO mean in practice for the Labor Movement, the AFL-CIO, and more specifically, the other members of the AFL-CIO Building Trades Coalition Department? Will this move galvanize the building trades, or will it cause former tensions to resurface? Once the ink is dry on the press statements and the photo ops have ended, there will be some serious issues to be hammered out between LIUNA and the AFL-CIO.

First, there is the question of whether the AFL-CIO should levy any penalty or back per capita dues accrued during LIUNA’s time away from the Federation. James Williams, General President of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT) said in an interview on August 27, 2010, that he couldn’t comment as to whether the AFL-CIO would assess any back per capita, as it would come up in the executive meetings in the near future. When asked his personal feeling on whether the back per capita should be an option, Williams stated, “In a perfect world I would say they should pay some back per capita, but realistically, it’s not likely to happen.” Williams later said that he didn’t feel that it was necessary to impose a per capita penalty on LIUNA at this time. Given the fact that the AFL-CIO did not levy a penalty against Unite Here! when they returned in 2009, it appears extremely unlikely that LIUNA will face any financial penalty for its split from the AFL-CIO in 2005.

This poses a very serious issue for the AFL-CIO: If in practice, there is no penalty for leaving the AFL-CIO, in part to escape paying per capita taxes, which was very much part of the decision back in 2005, what is to stop any affiliate union from bailing from the AFL-CIO for a few years if they get into financial problems? With the ticking time bomb many unions have with their pension programs, this precedent could turn out to be disastrous for the AFL-CIO in the coming years.

Second, there is the lingering issue of whether the AFL-CIO should require some form of a public mea culpa from LIUNA regarding the situation with the unaffiliated United Brotherhood of Carpenters (UBC). A long-time, high-ranking union official, who did not wish to be identified due to the subject matter, noted that this should make some of the other members of the AFL-CIO Building Trades Coalition a bit uneasy due to LIUNA’s past behavior. Several years ago, LIUNA conspired with the Brotherhood of Carpenters (UBC) to set up a tier system in which the UBC would organize the skilled laborers, and LIUNA would organize the unskilled laborers, therefore squeezing out the other building trade unions. This scheme fell apart, mainly because the employers weren’t cooperative enough. However, if the employers would have gone along with this plan, several of the AFL-CIO building trade unions may have ceased to exist. Given this past activity, it should worry some of the building trade unions that not only is the AFL-CIO accepting LIUNA back with open arms, but also without any type of apology or public denouncement regarding the aforementioned situation with the Carpenters. At the very least, the AFL-CIO should require a public statement from LIUNA affirming their dedication to Article 20 of the AFL-CIO Constitution, which prohibits this type of activity by its affiliate unions.

For their part, the member unions of the AFL-CIO Building Trades Coalition Department are publicly supportive of LIUNA’s return. IUPAT General President James Williams said he is “Glad to have Terry [O’Sullivan] back,” and hailed him as a “Strong, progressive leader.” One has to wonder, however, how this will play out behind closed doors at the upcoming AFL-CIO executive meetings, and whether this will turn out to be a major victory for President Trumka, or another division in the house of labor.