|
By Harry Kelber "The most critical challenge facing unions today is organizing. There is much we can do to strengthen ourselves for today's battles--but without a massive increase in union membership, we cannot prevail in the long run."
Since 1995, when John Sweeney took office as president, the labor federation's membership as a percentage of the nation's work force has continued to decline and is now at 13.9 percent, the lowest in its history.While unions organized a total of 373,000 workers in 1998--principally in the service, communications, utilities, and government sectors — the net gain in union members was a disappointing 65,000. There are two explanations for the wide gap between the two figures. First, there were heavy losses in union membership due to massive corporate downsizing, plant closings, subcontracting to non-union firms and the relocation of factories to low-wage countries. Unions have been caught on a treadmill, trying to recruit workers to overcome their membership losses, while the economy has created hundreds of thousands of new jobs beyond the reach of labor organizers. Second, unions were unable to obtain a collective bargaining agreement for nearly half of the 373,000 workers they organized last year, because of strong employer resistance. And until these workers are covered by a contract and are paying union dues, they are not considered--or counted--as union members. Despite the AFL-CIO's lackluster organizing record, polls show that tens of millions of workers would like to join a union and enjoy its benefits, but they fear they might lose their job if their employer found out. Joining a union, as they see it, is a risk, not a right. Employers find a variety of ways, legal and illegal, to refuse to "bargain in good faith" with the unions representing their employees, and they are undeterred by the unfair labor practice charges which unions file against them. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics recently announced that the nation's unions had gained a total of 101,000 new members, but that included the 35,000 credited to independent unions like the huge National Education Association. The federation's organizing department has not issued any report in the past two years about its successes and failures or how it has spent its $20 million organizing budget. Nor has there been any indication from the organizing director, Kirk Adams, on whether new strategies are being considered to step up the AFL-CIO's organizing efforts. Below are a few unsolicited suggestions that may be helpful. First, the AFL-CIO needs a policy initiative that will resonate with millions of workers who are worried about the permanence of their jobs and the uncertainty of their economic future. Sweeney's "America Needs a Raise" was too abstract to catch on and was relevant only when it was accompanied by the fight for a raise in the minimum wage. The AFL-CIO missed a great organizing opportunity by allowing the orgy of corporate downsizing to proceed unchallenged. The several million workers who were being fired by America's major corporations represented a cross-section of the nation's labor force, including men and women in every industry and occupation, both union and non-union. By accepting the conventional wisdom that corporations had no choice but to downsize, the AFL-CIO made itself irrelevant to the millions who were losing — or might lose — their jobs at a time when they would have welcomed a strong and sympathetic champion. What could the unions have done? They could have insisted on intervening on behalf of the workers being discharged; they could have joined with religious and community leaders to ask corporate management whether the number of layoffs was justified; whether they could be reduced through early retirements or other methods, and whether the dismissed workers were receiving the severance pay and other benefits to which they were entitled. They could have demanded proper protection against speedup for employees who remained on the job. By offering no resistance, the AFL-CIO, in effect, gave corporations a green light to continue their wholesale layoffs. The AFL-CIO could also turn its attention to the 43 million Americans who lack health insurance and the additional millions who are being mistreated by profit-hungry insurance companies and HMOs. What it would have to do is to proclaim its support for a universal, single-payer health insurance plan, giving all Americans a basic human right that is enjoyed by citizens of countries far less wealthy than ours. While raising money and assigning staff for organizing is essential, it is no guarantee of success. The fact is that the labor federation has failed to establish a high-level training program for front-line organizers who can match the employers' high-priced union-busting law firms and management consultants. The AFL-CIO Organizing Institute does an excellent job in its three-day training program for novices, but has assigned only 175 of its "graduates" as three-month apprentices to various unions. There are some first-rate organizers performing well for their unions, but most staffs do not have the systematic training they need to cope with the many tricks and traps they will encounter during an organizing campaign. Well-trained volunteers are essential in any organizing campaign, because they can more readily get the ear of non-union workers in visits to their homes, where they can compare notes about wages, benefits and working conditions.Unfortunately, training of volunteers is haphazard or completely neglected. Given a shortage of trained organizers, there are fewer companies that can be targeted for organizing. While there is much talk within the labor movement about worker rights, the AFL-CIO has failed to get friendly Democrats in Congress to sponsor a bill that could ban the use of permanent replacements of strikers or provide stiff penalties for employers who fire workers for exercising their legal right to join a union. No such legislation was introduced even in the years 1992-1994, when the Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House. During the 1998 elections, the labor federation soft-pedaled the issue of worker rights, concentrating on Social Security, education and patients' rights, in tandem with the Democratic Party campaign strategy. Asked why the AFL-CIO was not promoting worker rights legislation in Congress, a staff member responded that it would have little chance of passing in a Republican-controlled Congress. But agitating for worker rights won't produce any tangible results if it is not focused on a specific bill that would rectify the injustices contained in the current National Labor Relations Act. It will take time to develop a full-fledged campaign on worker rights that will capture public attention and put pressure on Congress. So why not have a bill introduced this year with which to mobilize strong support by the time of the 107th Congress in the new millennium? To this day, the AFL-CIO does not have its own weekly newspaper, radio station or cable TV channel. It is squandering an opportunity to strengthen its organizing efforts by reaching out to the nation's workers with informative, entertaining programs that contain a core union message. Its official publication is a monthly magazine which is mailed to fewer than one percent of the federation's membership. Most union members are unaware of what AFL-CIO leaders are saying or doing, and no real effort is being made to interest them. Their help is essential for any large-scale organizing campaign to be successful, but how can they be inspired to become involved if they don't know what's happening? Working people, union or non-union, get their labor news from the business-controlled media which, when they choose to, can put an anti-union spin on the stories they are reporting, and who is there to correct them? The problem boils down to this: If the AFL-CIO can't reach millions of workers with a sustained message that answers their questions, how is it going to organize them? It would be both interesting and helpful if AFL-CIO leaders would respond to our constructive suggestions on organizing, either in The Labor Educator or elsewhere. But judging from past and recent practice, they do not consider any criticism of their policies, justified or not, as worthy of a public reply. Whether you agree or disagree with this article, we welcome your opinions. You write it and we'll print it in our next issue. — Ed. |