How Sweeney and Trumka Tricked Members
To Grab 4-Year Term by an Illegal Voice Vote

Shortly after John Sweeney had been elected AFL-CIO president and Richard Trumka, secretary-treasurer, in 1995, the two of them were plotting how they could double their term of office from two years to four years.

But how to do it? Not by going directly to the membership. It would make them look greedy, There’d be lots of opposition from many unions and their members, who were, in principle, against giving so much power to elected officials. There would be endless debate, particularly on the companion amendment to hold AFL-CIO conventions every four years instead of every two. Was it too soon and too risky to push for a four-year term, they wondered.

Besides, there was the problem of the AFL-CIO Constitution, which, in ARTICLE XVI, stated: ”The Constitution can be amended only by the convention, by two thirds of those present and voting, either by a show of hands, or if a roll call is properly demanded, as provided in this Constitution by such roll call.”

This looked like an impossible hurdle. Sweeney and Trumka knew they couldn’t command a two-thirds approval of their amendment. Who would lead the campaign in their behalf? Both Sweeney and Trumka reasoned they could not afford a bruising—and losing—battle to increase their term of office.

Instead, the two of them came up with a secretive scheme that would not require debate or approval from the rank-and-file. They would say nothing, absolutely nothing, about their ambition. Not a word appeared anywhere about their secret plan for nearly two years, until they sprung it on the delegates on the first day of the 1997 convention.

The amendment to increase the Sweeney-Trumka tenure from two years to four was rushed through with a tricky parliamentary maneuver, which was incomprehensible to many delegates. There was not a single speaker to debate the issue or even to ask questions. It was passed in a half-filled convention hall by voice vote, which Sweeney and Trumka knew was in violation of the Constitution.

Should Sweeney and Trumka Be Charged with Corrupt Behavior?

Here is a verbatim account of what happened to the amendment, as quoted from the 1997 Convention Proceedings (p. 99):

“CAREY: Motion is to adopt proposed substitute Constitutional Amendment “A” and to take no further actions on Proposed Constitutional Amendment 7 and 8. Is there a second?

“The question was seconded by several unidentified delegates.

“CAREY: Is there any discussion?

“The question is on the adoption of Proposed Substitute Constitutional Amendment and to take no further action on the Proposed Constitutional Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Nay?

“The motion is carried.” (Applause)

I attended the 1997 convention as a reporter and was a first-hand witness at the event It was a sickening experience to watch the cunning parliamentary maneuvering to approve the Sweeney-Trumka bid for a four-year term. When the final vote was taken, large groups of delegates were outside the hall, regarding it as recess time. It was questionable whether there was a quorum in the hall.

Many of the delegates didn’t understand what they were voting for, because the final version did not contain a word about a four-year term. Not even one of the 675 delegates rose to speak on the motion or ask a question, nor did a single delegate cast a vote against the amendment.

Well, do we need an Ethical Practices Committee? Is it time for the AFL-CIO to make some democratic changes?—Harry Kelber

LaborTalk (72) will be posted here on Friday, June 11, 2010 and on our two web sites, https://www.laboreducator.org/ and www.laborsvoiceforchange.org.