The Official Organ of LaborNET
click here to view the latest edition of Workers Online
The Official Organ of LaborNET
Free home delivery
August 2005   

Interview: On Holiday
Historian Richard White looks back on the Aussie vacation - and finds a way of life is under threat.,

Unions: One Day Longer
Nathan Brown travels to the Boeing picket line and find a group of workers with a steely determination to stick together.

Industrial: Never Mind the Bollocks
Jim Marr plays the Howard Government's industrial relations spin job on its merits.

Politics: Spun Out
Canberra’s latest campaign underlines the need for controls over government advertising, according to Graeme Orr and Joo-Cheong Tham

Economics: If the Grog Don't Get You ....
Evan Jones explains how the way we purchase alcolohol reflects the type of economy we live in.

History: Taking a Stand
Neale Towart looks at two books that chronicle how to build community support against social injustice.

International: The Split
Amanda Tattersal outsider's account of an insider's shake-out at the AFL-CIO Convention 2005

Legal: Pushing the Friendship
George Williams argues that the federal government’s constitutional powers are not sufficient to enact a comprehensive national industrial relations scheme

Poetry: Simple Subtractions
The latest blitz of taxpayer-funded advertising has revealed a crisis of arithmetic in government ranks has moved resident bard David Peetz to prose.

Review: Sydney Trashed
Sydney band SC Trash are on a mission to give new life to folk and country music – and the politics of common sense. Nathan Brown had a beer with them


The Westie Wing
Our favourite MP, Ian West, goes away for a couple of weeks and look what happens…

The Soapbox
The Last Weekend
Unions NSW secretary John Robertson's speech to the Last Weekend - how the Howard government laws will undermine the Ausrtalian way of life.

The Locker Room
A Concept Is Born
In which Phil Doyle helps the proponents of the vision thing across the road.

Workers Blood For Oil
A new book by Abdullah Muhsin and Alan Johnson lifts the lid on the bloody reality of US backed democracy for Iraq's trade unions

London Post
During his recent stay in London IEU industrial officer John Shapiro was living only a few hundred metres from the site of one of the bomb blasts.


Iemma’s Dilemmas
The past fortnight has seen the sort of upheaval in NSW that reminds us all that politics is a very tenuous game with few certainties and even fewer rules.


 Carmen's Boss No Fun Guy

 Discriminating Centrelink on Charges

 Uproar Over Holiday Plans

 Do The Bus Stop

 Taxpayers to Fund Advertising Orgy

 Get Up Stands Up

 Andrews Provokes Showdown

 Thousands in Super Rort

 Constituents Don’t Trust Andrews

 Skill Shortage Fabricated

 Yanks Short Change Tradesmen

 Howard Steamroller Hits Building Sites

 CFMEU Bans Ferguson

 Activists Whats On!

 Back To The Past
 AFL-CIO Not The Only War
 Be Afraid
 Frame Up
 We Love Morris
 ANew Development
 A Readers Suggestion
About Workers Online
Latest Issue
Print Latest Issue
Previous Issues
Advanced Search

other LaborNET sites

Labor Council of NSW
Vic Trades Hall Council
IT Workers Alliance
Unions on LaborNET
Evatt Foundation

Labor for Refugees



The Split

Amanda Tattersal outsider's account of an insider's shake-out at the AFL-CIO Convention 2005

By chance I found myself at the 2005 AFL-CIO pre-conference and convention, for a timely but not pretty moment in US union history. For the previous year and a half, key organising unions, including the SEIU and UNITE HERE had been pushing for structural changes in the AFL to give it the power to pressure its affiliates to organise. Recently these two unions had been joined by unlikely allies in the Teamsters, Foodworkers and Carpenters. In Dec 2004 they released a Unity Partnership document outlining a program of changes including mergers, industry organising and rebates for unions who had committed 'seriously' to organising. And the word split had been bandied about in plenty of US press.

So, never one to snub a political drama I took a few days off from my field work in Chicago to attend both the pre-Convention conference on Organising and Diversity and the 4 Day Convention. And what a sight it was. Organised labor; the biggest union movement in the world concentrating its energy for one week in order to rip itself apart.

Before the formalities began, I attended a pre-Convention, 'whip 'em up' pro-Sweeny rally. It was odd as an outsider to be flung into a polarised environment. I was the only one without my tribally-branded union shirt. Everyone had a different coloured shirt, all made especially with 'pro-Sweeny' insignias. AFSCME in Green, CWA in red, Steelworkers in Blue ... etc. Above the stage in the 1500 seat room was a big sign saying "United to Win" (as opposed to "Change to Win). Then there were the speeches. Generally the rhetoric was kept subtle - saying things like 'we need to be united' etc. But the most surprising comment came from Linda Chavez-Thompson. Early on in her speech she started off a call back - saying something to which everyone collectively responds. She said, 'there are some enemies of the labor movement in the country.' Then she listed several, 'like the Chamber of Commerce' and everyone went boo. And the right to work committee. Boo. George Bush. Boo. Walmart ... boo , and then she said 'the Change to Win Coalition' and everyone said BOOO. Certainly a fairly strong statement, no matter how angry the split makes you feel!

Within hours of the Sweeny rally we found out that the Change to Win Coalition (the newly constituted union Federation, consisting of the Unity Partnership unions), were going to boycott the convention. Days later the Coalition announced would set up a formal staffed office and have a Convention of their own in September. It's a pity that union members were not exposed to a debate about the merit of the two proposals. Instead, the debate was contained to white, old, men in secret backrooms. But, perhaps it means that a reunion may be possible. A blood match on the floor would not have assisted in building positive relationships between the two camps.

In the first few days of the Convention an interesting rhetorical tension sprung up that defined the 'two camps.' The frame is no longer about servicing versus organising. These days everyone is for organising. Today the semantic war is between political action versus organising. And of course the frustration as on observer is that it is a false debate. Of course effective political action occurs when more workers are organised. But the debate has been commodified into a question of contrasting resource commitments. Sweeny wants to prioritise money for politics, legislative change and to defend the Kerry campaign; Stern is pushing for a list of commitments that support organising. But to me the frustrating thing is the narrowness of each side. You need to both organise more workers and influence and change the marco political environment. They question is not the merits of those objectives, but HOW you achieve those two goals together. But that sort of detail tends to be lost in the division created between the two objectives.

The SEIU have used the history of the CIO split as a key reason for why a split now can bring greater accelerated growth in the movement. The argument is that the CIO's separation from the AFL in the mid-30s allowed for focused organising, and similarly splitting now can allow organising to rapidly take off. Yet there is another less famous split in the AFL-CIO. This one was in 1968 and occured when the UAW and the Teamsters split from the AFL-CIO because of conservativism and incompetence. Those unions formed the American Labor Alliance and argued for more organizing in the south and in growing industries. The UAW split did not increase the size of the movement, and 10 years later the UAW returned. It will be interesting to see which pattern of history - CIO or ALA - most accurately describes the next period of union action in the US.

It was on the third day of the Convention that the anger and tension generated by the split vented on conference floor. The vehicle for the debate was a series of motions that called for Constitutional Amendments to increase affiliation fees to Central Labor Councils. There are about 300 Central Labor Councils in cities and states around the country. The fear is that these Councils will have a financial crisis with the dissafiliations. Discussion about this is complex. It is hard to tell what might happen, as it seems that affiliation and disaffiliation will be an issue for locals and SEIU may not disaffilate in all places. Others say that the SEIU may not be invited back into CLCs - it is hard to know what will happen, but this motion was to abate a possible finanical crisis. In launching the debate the Constitutional Committee pulled no punches in explaining that the reason for these motions was caused by the 'shameful disaffiliations' by SEIU and Teamsters.

And then did the anger fly. One delegate got up and said 'when those outside the house of labor come to my Central Labor Council and ask for help - I will say NO.' Another said, that we need this resolution because of there is a 'fear of poaching by the SEIU and Teamsters' so they will need more money to fight back. The angriest response was from an AFSCME delegate. He announced to the conference that there was 'raiding already going on.' Certainly, there had already been a whisper campaign about 'raiding in Southern California' - now the conference heard. The argument was that AFSCME Homecare workers are re-negotiating a contract and the SEIU is also involved. In the past the AFL was a space for resolving disputes between competing unions. So this delegate explained, AFSCME had written to the AFL to resolve the dispute. And then the delegate held up a letter from Andy Stern that said that because the SEIU was no longer a member of the AFL that he was not bound by AFL dispute resolution processes. I don't know the detail of this story - of course - it sounds pretty bad, but most poaching stories sound bad from either side. But know this - this delegate's speech received a STANDING OVATION. There is a lot of anger in this room, and these tales are spuring on the anger.

It is also important to put this particular fight between the SEIU and AFSCME into perspective - a key tension in the whole split is between AFSCME and SEIU. AFSCME is the public sector union, representing people like state employees, public service and often privatised public sector workers. Clearly there is an overlap in constitencies between them and the SEIU who represent private sector (often publicly subsidised) service workers. And there is a history of 'union competition' between them, a long history that predates the convention. Then, to complicate it further, the current President of AFSCME is the annointed next leader of the AFL. And, one of the key demands pushed by the SEIU was that the AFSCME president NOT be the next AFL President. So it is a tense relationship.

It was then interesting to watch the division then spiral out of control during the afternoon's debate. The anger that had begun from the stage grew louder and more passionate on the floor. Nothing highlighted this better than when there was a motion about mergers. Now mergers were also on the list of the Change to WIn Coalition (yes - thats right - amalgamations are a popular cause here). The Stern camp urged for forced mergers (you know like the old Accord compulsory amalagamations!). The Sweeny camp wanted to urge where appropriate. So the conference voted on this issue of urging' amalgamations. The last speaker got up and got angry saying - 'we shouldn't support those SEIU demands, we shouldn't support any of those reforms, we should vote this down and tell them that they can't tell us what to do.' He got (again) a massive applause. Most surprising then, was on the voices the Chair's motion was rolled; rolled by a conference floor holding so much anger about SEIU/Teamsters that they wanted to roll anything that looked like reform. The members fell (only briefly) out of control of the leaders - the anger from the stage had created a monster in the mob. Of course, the leaders then took control and had a standing vote with each of the leaders on the stage showing where 'they stood on the issue' (literally, cause the stage stands over the crowd) and the members generally followed suit.

The anger then got louder still on another structural motion - this time to reduce the size of the Governing Council to 41 (ie. just reducing the Governing Council by the numbers of SEIU/Teamster/etc members who had left it). This debate was even more depressing - cause the room started turning on each other. A bunch of small unions got up and demanded a different structure - one where they were represented -cause after all 'they didn't leave the federation', 'they were loyal ' and so they should get to have a Federation member on the stage. And on it went. Its not a constructive time for the US Labor Movement.

But in the midst of all this tension a great thing happened. The US Union Movement voted to 'bring the troops home as quickly as possible'. This is radical. The AFL did not oppose the Vietnam War, and now they are standing with a growing movement of mainstream Americans calling for an end to the occupation and an end to the privatisation of Iraq.

The AFL-CIO and its renegade Federation Change to Win are set for a tough road ahead. It is an aggressively hostile political environment, a cold climate for staging a radical new strategy. There is no Roosevelt and friendly labor laws in sight, nor is there a radical rank and file lead labor insurgency. Yet with density collapsing in the US it is time for radical action. No matter what, it is testing times ahead.

Amanda Tattersall is a Doctoral Candidate in Work and Organisation Studies. She is in Chicago compiling field work for her PhD on Community Unionism. She is also an officer at Unions NSW. Her email is [email protected]


email workers to a friend printer-friendly version latest breaking news from labornet

Search All Issues | Latest Issue | Previous Issues | Print Latest Issue

© 1999-2002 Workers Online
Workers Online is a resource for the Labour movement
provided by the Labor Council of NSW
Last Modified: 15 Nov 2005

Powered by APT Solutions
Labor Council of NSW Workers Online