Thomas Paine and July 4th

I can always count on UE to put historical events into the context of the worker.

This July 4th, we focus on Thomas Paine, founding father and champion of the working class who was once fired for organizing workers.

http://www.ueunion.org/ue-news-feature/2012/tom-paine-and-the-4th-of-july-the-worker-who-helped-make-a-revolution

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

The Great Disappearing Act

No, I'm not referring to Candidate Obama, or Medicare under Paul Ryan's budget.

I'm referring to the phenomenon that occurs with the staff of labor organizations every time there is an election.  If you are a union member, have you ever noticed that your union representation becomes as hard to find as a unicorn during election season?  The local office is as empty as a church on Sunday morning - unless it is being used as a campaign office.

 

The reason for this is one of the worst kept secrets in the world of organized labor.  Every election cycle, in direct conflict with FEC law, union staff are forced to "volunteer" for whoever the Democratic candidate happens to be.  In presidential election cycles, this can start as early as September, and in mid-term or special elections, it can start in October.

I experienced this firsthand during my time with a certain purple entity during the Senate Bill 5/Issue 2 election.  Instead of representing our members as we should have, we were required to work exclusively out of a campaign office.  Everything else became secondary, unless you had an actual arbitration hearing.  In full disclosure, the S.B. 5 recall was somewhat justified, as it directly affected almost a third of the members of our local who were state employees.  However this is commonplace in presidential and statewide races where this is not the case. So, if you happen to have a contract that might be coming up for negotiation, it might be a little concerning if all of the sudden, everyone is off doing political work instead of representing members. 

This is not limited to SEIU.  This is standard procedure with virtually every major labor union, with the exception of the United Electrical Workers(UE) and the National Union of HealthCare Workers(NUHW),  who prefer direct action to wasting its time with PACs.

I'm not saying the unions should not be involved in the political realm.  It is necessary and important, as elected officials have direct influence on the livelihood of union members.  What I am saying is that a union's involvement in politics should not come at the expense of member representation, which is almost always the case.

In Solidarity,

Joseph

Is It Time For a Working Class Continental Congress?

In 1905, Big Bill Haywood opened the first convention of the Industrial Workers of the World(IWW) by saying, "This is the Continental Congress of the working class."  Nearly one-hundred and seven years later, is it time for the working class to come together again for a 2nd Continental Congress?  After all, in spite of what anti-labor propagandists would have us believe, many of the issues faced by the IWW in 1905 still exist.

I asked several members of the labor community if they thought that such an endeavor could be successful in galvanizing the working class beyond big labor.  Bill Fletcher, author of Solidarity Divided said, "I think that regional gatherings that built towards something national would be interesting particularly if broad."  Countering that point of view was Chris Townsend, National Political Director for the United Electrical Workers of America(UE), who stated when I posed the question of whether this could be an effective approach, "Yes, but not yet. The level of union activity at the rank and file level may be an an all-time low point. The "left" plays little role in addressing this, choosing instead to rally whatever contacts they have for issues and struggles other than basic union organization and struggle. We have a labor leadership which has relegated organizing the unorganized to marginal status at best, with many having given up on it altogether."

As for myself, I believe that the time has come for the working class - both organized and unorganized - to begin meeting in a sort of workers' councils at the local level.  Once these have been established, then the planning of a 2nd Continental Congress of the Working Class could commence.  What must be guarded against is the tendency that big labor has had in the past to usurp control over any movement of this type.  Bill Preston, President of AFGE Local 17 in Washington, DC, also mentioned that big labor might try to take over control of  the movement, " I am for experimenting with any tactical form that advances the cause of expropriating the capitalists and making the working class the ruling class...I think the labor fakers will try to hog the limelight as you say, once they see their unions' members active."

As we have witnessed over the last 18 months or so with the Tea Party and Occupy Movements, sometimes it is better to not have one organization or individual driving a movement.  If the workers in the United States have had enough, now just might be the right time for action.

In Solidarity,

Joseph

Labor's New Odd Couple, Or A Match Made In Heaven?

There is the familiar old adage, politics makes strange bedfellows.  The recent announcement that the NationalUnion of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) and the International Association of Machinistsand Aerospace Workers (IAM) are discussing a possible affiliation may have some people reworking that statement to include the labor movement.   

Like many in the labor community, I have to admit I was puzzled when I first heard of this possible partnership.  Why would an independent union of healthcare workers who are locked in an epic struggle against what is arguably the most undemocratic union in modern labor history consider teaming up with a union that has no history of representing healthcare workers, and frankly, has had its own issues in the past with internal democracy?

            According to John Borsos (Vice-President of NUHW), “IAM shares NUHW’s vision to build a national healthcare union.”  The fact that IAM is not involved in healthcare is seen as something of a plus to NUHW, as Borsos believes this will afford his organization a greater level of autonomy.  Of course, all of these issues are yet to be hammered out by the two unions, and any affiliation would be subject to approval by the respective memberships. 

So why would NUHW choose IAM over another independent union, such as the United ElectricalWorkers (UE) or another healthcare union like the California Nurses Association(CNA)?  While Borsos confirmed that there were other suitors who showed interest in NUHW, he declined to confirm specific organizations who expressed interest. 

While detractors will likely speculate that the NUHW-IAM alliance is based solely on the fact that NUHW needs resources for the upcoming rerun of the Kaiser Permanente elections, it is important to point out that if there were the case, why wouldn’t NUHW just affiliate with Unite Here, who, according to the Department of Labor, gave NUHW $4.8 million in 2010?  When asked about what kind of support IAM would be giving NUHW in the upcoming elections, Borsos would only say that IAM would be offering assistance – “Both financial and otherwise.” 

While there is no question that NUHW will benefit greatly from this alliance, it should be pointed out that IAM will also benefit from its willingness to consider an affiliation with this upstart democratic union.  If they are committed to making their union more democratic, then this affiliation could be a step in the right direction.  While some may view this as the labor movement’s current version of the odd couple, skeptics should at the very least applaud the willingness of IAM to take on the purple monster, which is something that most unions have not had the intestinal fortitude to do thus far.   

(SEIU did not respond to repeated requests for comment on this story)

Book Review: Civil Wars In U.S. Labor by Steve Early

 

Ever since Florence Reese wrote the lyrics to Which Side Are You On? in 1931, that question has been posed between labor and the bosses. With his latest offering, The Civil Wars in U.S. Labor, Steve Early will have workers and activists asking themselves where they stand in the labor movement.

In Civil Wars, Early, who is a well known critic of SEIU’s lack of internal democracy, meticulously dissects the various internal issues that have plagued the organization over the last several years. At the same time he also gives a historical background to provide adequate context for the reader to understand where the problems originated. Early discusses the failure of the MAC (Member Action Center) Call Centers in a chapter that is humorously titled, Dial 1-800-My-Union? The MAC line was a running joke during my time as an SEIU Organizer with District 1199 in West Virginia, as it consisted of an answering machine and an email being sent to the organizer to fix whatever issue had been reported.

While Civil Wars gives a very detailed account of the hostile takeover of United Healthcare West that led to the formation of NUHW (National Union of Healthcare Workers), Early also points out that while this trusteeship is by far the most publicized and biggest action by SEIU, it is certainly not the first. Early explains how Andy Stern crushed dissent in other locals by forcing their members into other locals who were either already under trusteeship, or under the leadership of Stern loyalists.

Early does not end his coverage of SEIU’s woes with internal issues. In a section titled How EFCA Died for ObamaCare, Early explains how SEIU burrowed into a position of influence inside the Obama administration and effectively elbowed out other unions. This is something that has put even more stress on the already fractured relationship SEIU has with the rest of big labor.

As a former SEIU staffer, I found myself cringing as I read Civil Wars, much as many rock stars must have cringed watching Spinal Tap for the first time. I believe this book should be required reading, not only for members of SEIU, who will find Civil Wars to be a disturbing peek behind the purple curtain, but also for anyone who cares about the future of the labor movement.  I found Civil Wars to be a disturbing validation of what I experienced firsthand as an organizer with SEIU.  The chickens have finally come home to roost after twenty years of shifting from a grassroots democratic union into a top-down bureaucratic corporation that places a higher value on political influence than it does on member representation.  

Civil Wars offers a unique look inside the challenging proposition facing NUHW that is all too familiar for IWW members – surviving as an independent union.  Among the major labor organizations in the United States, only a few, namely IWW and the United Electrical Workers(UE) have survived over the long-term.  NUHW’s recent partnership with the Machinists(IAM) demonstrates just how difficult it can be.

While Early focuses on SEIU, the issues that are raised in Civil Wars are faced by members in many other unions. When unions begin to look more like the corporations they are supposed to be fighting than the militant, democratic voice for workers that they are meant to be, it is only natural that the battle lines will begin to form, as Civil Wars clearly shows.

The real question Early seems to be asking is, very simply, Which Side Are You On?

Virtual Picket Line Clip of the Week

This is a clip of my good friend and National Political Director for the United Electrical Workers(UE), Chris Townsend, laying the smackdown on an anti-union Republican strategist:

I wish we could get Chris on cable news a lot more often.

In Solidarity,

Joseph

General Electric(GE) and the United Electrical Workers(UE) Return to the Table

If you ever want to see the difference between the way a corporation thinks, and the way a union thinks, look no further than the ongoing negotiations between GE and UE.  This was made very evident in the opening statements, where GE brought the same old song and dance about how rough they have it, and how workers must "share the burden" when there are losses.  Of course, now that GE has rebounded from the financial crisis, they are unwilling to "share the profit" with their workers.  This point was not lost on UE President John Hovis, who stated, 


"Certainly the company has “rebounded strongly” from the financial crisis, said Hovis and is therefore “in a position to address positively the issues that concern our members.” He noted GE’s 2010 gross profit of $14.2 billion last year, ranking it sixth among the Fortune 500. “Just last month,” Hovis added, in reporting first quarter results, “Mr. Immelt reported $82 billion of cash on the company’s balance sheet, the third dividend increase to stockholders in the past year, and a record backlog of orders going forward.”


It is this fundamental difference in worldview that debunks the myth that unions have somehow outlived their relevance.  As long as companies rely on their workers to turn a profit and refuse to share the spoils, there will always be a need for workers to form unions to get their fair share.


More on these negotiations to come...


In Solidarity,


Joseph

The 16th Congress of the World Federation of Trade Unions

From April 6th - 11th, 2011, delegates from 210 organizations in over 120 countries, representing over 78 million members gathered in Athens, Greece for the 16th Congress of the World Federation of Trade Unions.  Unfortunately, this exciting event that is held every five years is largely unknown to the majority of the labor movement in the United States.

Why is this?

Actually, there are a few different reasons.

1. Where Are Our Leaders?  I'll start with a little history lesson.  A century ago, the American labor movement was robust, active, and had leaders who transcended the labor movement and galvanized the working class as a whole in the United States.  Leaders like Eugene Debs, Mother Jones, Joe Hill, to name a few.  Who can we name in the last three decades that is anywhere near the level of leader with anywhere close to the level of influence as the figures I mentioned above?  Sadly, the answer is no one.  Our lack of leadership in the United States to galvanize the working class against the ruling class is just one reason why we don't even hear about major labor events such as the WFTU's 16th Congress.  This brings me to my next point, which is why we haven't had any leaders.

2. The Purge -  In the 1940's and 1950's, the ruling class pulled off one of the greatest strategical moves in labor history.  Learning the lesson of Joe Hill(kill them, and you make them a martyr), the ruling class figured out a way to get the labor movement to get rid of their most effective leaders.  That's right - a little thing called Loyalty Oaths.  Sadly, big labor in the United States went right along with this idiotic exercise, expelling the most active and vocal leaders and organizations(UE, anyone?), and keeping the class collaborators.  The effects of this event still resonate and shape today's labor movement.  Have you ever notice that you can't start a union meeting without the pledge of allegiance or the national anthem?  I'm not saying those are bad things, but it is very telling that labor is still stuck in that mindset of having everyone prove their Americanism before every meeting.

3. Class Collaboration - The labor movement today is a far cry from its militant predecessor.  Instead of calling for the working class to unite and smack the ruling class back into reality, big labor has settled into the cozy setting of labor management forums and the bureaucracy of the toothless and cumbersome NLRB.  Our conventions are held at casino's and resorts, where we spend members' money on lavish dinners for officials.  This is the same activity that we complain about when it is corporations that are doing it.

4. Strike? What Strike? - In the United States, we have all but given up our best, and most powerful weapon of all - the ability to withhold our labor to deny profit to the ruling class in order to receive our fair share.  Most standard union contracts contain a "no-strike" clause in them.  This also barres unions from refusing to cross a picket line, or joining sympathy, or general strikes.  This is designed to keep the working class from uniting across industry lines.  Unless we bring back our most powerful weapon - which by the way, is used heavily, and with great success by WFTU unions - our movement will continue to wither away. It's time for us to return to our militant, grassroots, sit-down strike origins.

All of this brings me back to why the WFTU is largely unknown in the United States.  The WFTU believes in an open, democratic, militant membership.  They do not believe in discriminating against people with various political beliefs.  Most importantly, the do not believe in class collaboration, and openly call for combating capitalism and the unity of the working class in the struggle against the ruling class.

You can find out more about the WFTU, and their 16th Congress here:

http://www.wftucentral.org/?language=en

In Solidarity,

Joseph