Tegucigalpa The annual board meeting of ACORN International is being held next week and this year it will be held in Honduras to celebrate the two offices opened in this country last year.  While flying I read the paper and more than once a front page article entitled “Family Quarrel Imperils a Labor [...]]]>

Tegucigalpa The annual board meeting of ACORN International is being held next week and this year it will be held in Honduras to celebrate the two offices opened in this country last year.  While flying I read the paper and more than once a front page article entitled “Family Quarrel Imperils a Labor Hero’s Legacy.”

I found the article troubling, because it was hard for me to see what was supposed to be the “news” here?  What was of such weight that it found its way to the front page of the New York Times?

Was a family feud really that important?  Hardly.  The “news hook” was a lawsuit filed in March.  This is mid-May.  The allegations arise two years ago in 2009.  This is mid-2011!

Is there a sudden concern about Chavez’s “legacy?”  The article and its author, Jennifer Medina, belie that angle themselves in a later paragraph saying:  “Family members, without exception, talk about Cesar Chavez with deep reverence. They blanch at any criticism of the movement, as they refer to the broad work of the union under his watch.”

He’s been dead over 18 years since 1993 for goodness sakes, so exactly how his legacy might be “imperiled” as the headline blasts was also difficult to determine.

His role in modern culture is at this point secure and transcends the reality of his work and life, strengths, which were many, and weaknesses, which were also significant.  Like Martin Luther King, he speaks to the recognition and aspirations of a substantial people, the emerging Latin American majority, who have taken voice and dignity from his the way he lived and worked.  For Dr. King his speeches and position within the civil rights movement trump anything else.  With Chavez his humility, his fasts, and his dedication – not his success – in trying to give voice and organization to Latinos and the the invisible toilers of soil have secured his stature permanently, regardless of anything else.

All of this seems mean spirited.  Are we somehow to  believe that there is a sudden surge of care and concern for the plight of the farmer worker or the fact that the organization has lost membership in the last 35 to 40 years?  Certainly that his also not news, nor has anyone outside of the world of labor done much about this.  I found it ironic that Artie Rodriguez, the President of the UFW was not interviewed nor was their any commentary or reckoning with his struggles, small successes and failures over his tenure at the head of the union.  The revival of the farm workers union was a huge program under John Sweeney as president of the AFL-CIO, who directed millions and deployed great organizers like Stephen Lerner and Mark Splain for years to the task.

Frankly, I’m suspicious of the article for the quotes pulled in support of this strained slam at unions, farm workers, and their leaders.

This issue of Social Policy and an excerpt we are running on the front page of our website at www.socialpolicy.org covers perhaps the most controversial and devastating chapter in Miriam Pawel’s book, A Union of Their Dreams, which is the story of the purges of top leaders and organizers implemented by Chavez as he tried in misguided and sometimes bizarre ways to refocus the union on what he saw as its roots and values and retested loyalties and commitments to the union’s foundational principles.  Organizers may agree or disagree with Chavez’s ways and means, and these issues need to be surfaced and debated, but none of that imperils a legacy.   In corresponding with Pawel repeatedly I know how cautious she was in even allowing me permission to excerpt the piece because she did not want to be seen as defaming Chavez or that struggle.   Yet Medina has this quote in the piece justifying this curious story:

When Cesar Chavez was alive, he was a major force in California politics and agriculture. “The problem now is that the organization has simply drifted,” said Miriam Pawel, who has written a book about the union and is working on a biography of Mr. Chavez. “It has become a family-run organization that is sort of purposeless and does little or nothing to help farm workers.”

Normally, I would have believed that Pawel was misquoted, but since she personally forwarded the article to me, until I speak with her directly, I have to believe that she was not offended by the quote or she would have said so.

My friend the brilliant author of so many penetrating books, Mike Davis, who is also one of the most difficult guys in the world to track down, seems to have been right at hand for a call from the Times, and not surprisingly more reasonably hits the nail on the head at the end of this attack piece:

“In many ways, we’re back to square one for farm workers,” said Mike Davis, a California historian and a former union activist. “We have this wonderful myth and a model for kids to emulate in Cesar Chavez, but you could basically go to any field and rewrite ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ all over again.”

Now this is a story worth writing in America today.  In the 21^st Century we have almost medieval conditions in the fields or certainly situations that hark back to the Great Depression and the stories of Steinbeck.  We have a union that has been beaten and broken since Chavez on time which cannot carry the weight and burden of solving these problems while we have an industry and government callous, indifferent, ineffectual, and uninterested in solving these issues.

As Davis and Pawel would surely agree, all men and women of history are as much myth as muscle, so when the job of defaming unions, workers, their families, their dreams, and their work is finished, the hard job still remains.

What about all of that?  When does the pissing start and the next parade begin?

NLRB Seal

New Orleans The Republicans are clear that unions have a target on their backs.  Labor law reform was never alive, especially not carrying the weight of “card check” recognition or mandatory first contract arbitration, and is now relegated to the dreamscape.  They promise worse to come, and they have the votes to [...]]]>

NLRB Seal

New Orleans The Republicans are clear that unions have a target on their backs.  Labor law reform was never alive, especially not carrying the weight of “card check” recognition or mandatory first contract arbitration, and is now relegated to the dreamscape.  They promise worse to come, and they have the votes to do it.  Not necessarily in Congress where the President and the Senate ought to still be worth something, but unfortunately in the states where they eroded important areas of labor strength in the Midwest with a governor in Ohio and pickups in Indiana and Illinois, and potentially even the West, if they take the Governor’s chair in places like Washington, and even in Pennsylvania where they also acquired a big ticket governor.

The most effective labor organizing over the last several decades has involved winning bargaining rights and good contracts for public employees at the state level as well as winning bargaining rights for informal workers providing home health and home day care in numerous states.  The requirements for these strategies to work match strong worker support with compliant political will.  The recession has already cut the number of public and publicly supported jobs in both of these areas which will mean a loss of more than a million dues paying members over the next several years, and that also erodes one of our last bulwarks of strength and, frankly, resources.

All of which will either drastically shrink the map for new organizing or force unions back to the boards, which in this case unfortunately means figuring out a way to survive and grow under the arcane and difficult folkways and rules of the NLRB.

Piling up the bad news was the announcement of a close loss by the flight attendants union for representation rights at Delta Airlines by a couple of hundred votes.  The good news, thanks to the Obama administration, had been the fact that a union under a National Mediation Board election no longer had to win by a majority of all employees in the unit, but only by a majority of all of those voting (similar to the NLRB procedures).  This defeat was a setback since it was the first big election under the new rules, but there are a number of other elections pending, so there’s hope here.  No doubt the Republicans will put this on their list as part of the rollback, but it won’t go anywhere.

Many unions didn’t need to wait for the memo and have already started slowly moving in this direction realizing there was little hope for reform.  According to the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA):

“Unions participated in 221 more resolved representation elections conducted by the National Labor Relations Board during the first half of 2010 than the same period in 2009, but the percentage of elections won by unions decreased somewhat, according to NLRB data analyzed by BNA PLUS, BNA’s research division.

Unions won 69.2 percent of the 812 private sector elections held in the first six months of 2010, compared to 72.8 percent of 591 elections held in the same time period last year.

The number of workers eligible to vote in board-supervised representation elections increased from 32,019 in the first six months of 2009 to 50,801 during the first half of 2010. The number of workers organized by unions through NLRB elections also increased from 23,561 in the first half of 2009 to 32,725 in the same period of 2010.”

Close to 70% is not bad, and better than it was a decade ago, which says that targeting has continued to improve.  Obviously losing a million members will not be offset by filing for elections for 100,000 workers in 2010 and wining representation rights for 65000, but you have to have a horse to beat a horse, and at least some unions are saddling up.

This is not a “winning” strategy, but a survival strategy, and coupled with corporate pressure where we can still find vulnerabilities and geographic leverage, where there are still small islands of political strength, we might be able to hang on until, we get our act together and make a real plan.

The clock is ticking though and our time is running out and now the Huns are at the door.

Washington As I made my way back from half-way across the world, I watched the story unfold even before leaving Mumbai of first reports that Andy Stern would resign as President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and then a message from him by the time that I arrived at Dulles [...]]]>

Washington As I made my way back from half-way across the world, I watched the story unfold even before leaving Mumbai of first reports that Andy Stern would resign as President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and then a message from him by the time that I arrived at Dulles that there was a “time to lead and a time to leave.” There seems to be rampant speculation about what all of this means for Stern, for SEIU, and for the labor movement. There should be concern at the White House and among the progressive forces as well. Labor union meetings and decision making is still a lot like watching for smoke to signal from the Vatican that a new Pope has been chosen (speaking of a “time to leave”), but the SEIU International Board is meeting in DC for a couple of days, and I’m sure this is occupying a lot of attention as the jockeying and elbowing about the present and future is in full earnest.

When Local 100 was part of SEIU, I served for 8 years on that board having been elected on Stern’s slate during his first two terms before stepping down largely to move the Wal-Mart organizing pilots.  I would not pretend to know what is on the agenda now and since Local 100 is no longer an affiliate of SEIU, I wouldn’t know where to begin. I wouldn’t pretend to be a fan of everything Andy has done, but that’s the nature of the beast, nonetheless, if I were still on the board, I would be rising to speak in favor of the long goodbye for Stern.

He’s made his announcement and would be technically a lame duck, but I wouldn’t worry about that within the SEIU culture.  Speculation that he is being forced out is ridiculous.  He may have had some folks knocking at his door in hopes for anointment, but the board is Andy’s board from SEIUs Puerto Rican convention less than 2 years ago, and there’s no pressure there for him to leave. His last couple of chapters may have been more fraught with conflict given the split from the AFL, which has accomplished so little, and the internal problems on the West Coast and with other former union allies in HERE, and there’s a big hit coming whenever the final chapters of the problems with Tyrone Freeman in Los Angeles hit the front pages, but this is a guy who added 1.2 million members under his watch to all of the locals sitting around the big tables in whatever hotel is hosting the meeting, and he was the architect for about ½ million as Organizing Director under John Sweeney before he became International President. The Greenhouse article in the Times and some of the other pieces make it look like he’s got legacy issues, but there are none inside SEIU. Andy could stay another dozen years probably before facing much real heat.

In SEIU he’s earned a long goodbye on his own terms. I’m not sure how the current rules work on a special election, but given what it took to unlodge Sweeney’s successor, it’s probably a quick turnaround.  Andy should serve out his term for another two years and help in the hand off transition, the Obama re-election, and and the thousand other things on the “want to do” list before he leaves. The successor might be a little fidgety, but given the polarization in American politics now, letting Andy be the lightening rod for some of that for another couple of years makes sense while the successor straps it up. Trumka waited forever at the AFL-CIO and had no problem commanding the new space, and might could have used a two year transition internally there even though he had been around the building for more than a dozen years.

We have few real leaders in labor, so no one should sweat the small stuff. Andy did the job and made a difference.  SEIU would be crazy not to keep him for every day they can. I would move the “long goodbye!”

Toronto Before Judy Duncan, ACORN Canada Head Organizer, and I went to York University to address Dr. Stephanie Ross’ class on Worker Organizations, we me with a friend for a pleasant hour who was a senior executive of one of the largest unions in Canada.  We often had this dialogue about where labor stood [...]]]>

Toronto Before Judy Duncan, ACORN Canada Head Organizer, and I went to York University to address Dr. Stephanie Ross’ class on Worker Organizations, we me with a friend for a pleasant hour who was a senior executive of one of the largest unions in Canada.  We often had this dialogue about where labor stood and future strategies for building a labor movement.

The conversation was more sobering than usual.

He shared with us the results of a regular semi-annual poll on the attitudes of Canadian workers on a whole number of subjects, but most telling in this case were the polling results concerning attitudes of unorganized workers to joining unions.  I was shocked at how low the numbers had fallen.

The percentage of workers polled who indicated that they would vote for a union if there were a representation election in their workplace had fallen to only 8% or 1 out of ever 12 workers.  If there were no opposition to the union being approved, only 18% of the polled unorganized workers were likely to vote yes.  Remember, that’s without opposition.

Among existing members of unions the sentiment was going exactly the opposite direction.  If a Canadian worker was in a union, 76% of them were happy about it compared to only 24% who were less satisfied.  These were the best numbers in a score of years, obviously prompted by the impact of the recession.  The recession has essentially made workers even more petrified of shaking the boat in any way thereby increasing their fear of  change if it means voting for a union, but if they are members of a union, they are thankful during this recession that they have real protection!

Looking at the graph, it was clear that these numbers did not appear overnight, but were part of long developing trends where the support of unions by unorganized workers was steadily declining.

The conclusion seems simple.  Strategies and tactics have to change.  We cannot rebuild the labor movement, even in Canada where concentration is 2 ½ times what it is in the United States without a “majority unionism” strategy similar to what I discuss in Citizen Wealth. Canada, remember, is where labor law and protections for union organizing are still relatively good, especially when compared to the United States where they are abominable!  Yet, not even here is there much hope that going the straight ahead route is going to reverse the trend and restore the labor movement.

Our friend echoed our own fears as we got up to leave, saying he hoped his union, even though losing members, would “come to their senses” and change their course, while they still had enough members and resources to make the change, rather than realizing they had to change when it was too late.

Our friend was right on target, but all we could hope is that we could help, and that he and others within his union would eventually be able to win the debate while they still could make a difference.

Wherever it might be, it’s not for unions.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics [...]]]> New Orleans Well, Happy Valentine’s Day!  Makes me think of millions of people going out to restaurants, lounges, movies, theaters, and wherever and toasting their sweeties,  and then usually not leaving much of a tip later for the servers.  Where’s the love?

Wherever it might be, it’s not for unions.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics now says the Leisure and Hospitality subset of service sector employment is once again about 13,000,000 workers.  That’s a lot of hospitality!

On the other hand despite all of the employees and the low wages and sorry working conditions in the back of the house for hospitality workers, the rate of unionization is only a smudge over 3%.  North Carolina which trails the nation in unionization and is the scourge of unions has a 3% unionization rate if that helps you visualize how bad this is.

The 3+% unionization rate translates to about 310,000 union members of the US total.

If we wanted to zero in on one sector of employment that desperately needs real unions and real organizing drives to finally turn the tide and make a difference for low wage workers as well as revitalize the entire American labor movement, I would challenge brothers and sisters to come up with another set of workers where our potential is as great or the need as dramatic.

Happy Valentine’s Day to that!

            New Orleans               It’s amazing to me how many people came up to me over the last week on the East Coast and mentioned having read my recent blog about “Pink Sheeting and One-on-One’s” in UNITE-HERE and elsewhere in the labor movement.  Google analytics tells me that this is most frequently visited current item on [...]]]>  

            New Orleans               It’s amazing to me how many people came up to me over the last week on the East Coast and mentioned having read my recent blog about “Pink Sheeting and One-on-One’s” in UNITE-HERE and elsewhere in the labor movement.  Google analytics tells me that this is most frequently visited current item on the list.

            An email shared with me by some young labor organizers who were veterans of the Cornell program reminded me how destructive such conflict is to the future of the labor movement.  An SEIU organizer was recounting the struggles to put together a majority in a unit of a couple of hundred workers over a number of months to suddenly find six UNITE/HERE organizers swoop down to turn the unit topsy-turvy.  There are probably similar stories with the union’s names reversed.  All of this redefines the “race to the bottom” in union membership and relevance for working people in America.

            Other former organizers tried to pull me on either side of the divide.  An ex-AFSCME organizer told me about a recent fundraiser in Montclair for the divisive effort being led by Sal Roselli in the Bay Area.  He was interrupted by an SEIU contractor who had done some communications work in California telling him he had no clue of what was going on.  I left them still arguing the fine points of this disaster.

            Most interesting to me have been the messages from ex-UNITE/HERE folks chiding me for being too easy on John Wilhelm and protective of Carl Lechow, the long time organizing director for HERE.  In my earlier piece I assumed that Wilhelm and Lechow were distracted and the pink sheeting was an aberration and the “one-on-one’s” simply out of control.  These folks believed they both knew and encouraged these kinds of practices.  It is so contrary to my experience with either of these brothers, that I simply can’t believe it, so I won’t, but neither have I have wanted to really believe the Synanon period of the farmworkers until at this point there seems no way to deny its existence and impact.

            The best news shared with me on the trail was the rumors that there may finally be a real resolution and a true peace in this inhospitable conflict between SEIU and UNITE/HERE.  The architect of this potential settlement seems to have been Joe Hanson, president of the UFCW, who from what several people shared with me, has been indefatigable in trying to keep front doors, back doors, and all channels open in pursuit of an agreement.  What both parties are reviewing now was described as a “tough, but fair” settlement with each side having to eat some good portions of crow and a fair division of units and assets.  All of which is dandy for the accountants, but most importantly in my view I also heard that there would be real clarity and a complete understanding on organizing jurisdiction and that would be huge. 

            The only happy ending to this tawdry episode would be a real agreement on jurisdiction that once again paves the way for unions that have been committed to organizing, having their sights clearly trained on real targets and the objective of building mass organization among hospitality and other low wage service workers who desperately demand their own organizations and the right to fight for a better future at their workplaces.  To me it all seems to come down to whether or not President Wilhelm wants to keep fighting or to have peace and get back to organizing, since he has had the strongest cards in his hand throughout this mess.  John Wilhelm has been a seminal organizer and leader for hospitality workers in our time.  I hope he sees a way to be a leader here in binding the wounds of our crippled labor movement.