Disunion

Although it is not much reported in the places from which I get most of my news, the looming split in the AFL-CIO is of great interest to me. A summary of the internal conflict can be found in The American Prospect. I am not in a position to assess it for accuracy, but the article certainly has the feel of solid reporting. Contrast that with this Newsweek article, which oddly takes as its hook the potential consequences for the Democratic party.

A breakup would have broad implications in the workplace, pitting one set of unions, and one vision of unionism, against another. In politics, it would create competing spheres with one of them--the renegades--more willing to work with Republicans and more focused on organizing drives than on electoral politics. "In terms of Democratic politics, it's a disaster," says Rick Sloan, the Machinists communications director.

As the quotation shows, the article is more or less just parroting the conservative line of the AFL-CIO old guard. It is true that the "renegades," led by the SEIU, want to focus more resources on organizing non-union workers and that this is the the disagreement that has brought about the current tense state of affairs. But focusing less on getting Democratic politicians elected is not the same as supporting the Republican party, as the article seems to suggest. Now, I do not know that much about union politics, but I do no some SEIU organizers, and I have worked in their political organizing campaigns in the past, and I simply cannot imagine that the SEIU, were it to split from the AFL-CIO, or the broader organization, were it to adopt the SEIU's priorities, would suddenly start campaigning for Rick Santorum. Nor would it cease to be an effective electoral force for those candidates that it chose to support.

The article is not insensitive for the need to back up its assertions, but the evidence that it offers is extremely weak. First, recently, SEIU gave over $500,000 to the Republican Governors Association, topping its list of donors for that year (I believe it was last year, 2004). I have heard different vague explanations for this fact, but nothing very satisfying. Second, the article reports that a former RNC chairman was a paid consultant for SEIU for several years and that he worked out a deal in which SEIU commended President Bush for discussing immigration reform, even while refusing to back his specific proposals. Apparently this led to controversy and the consultant resigned his position. So what we have, more or less, is one instance of financial support for Republicans. Although this does seem to want explanation, it is by no means a sure sign of future lack of support for the Democratic party on the part of the "renegades."

What the article does not touch on is why SEIU thinks that labor unions should focus more resources on organizing rather than Democratic politicians, and we are left to reconstruct the possible arguments for ourselves (as is usually the case in what passes for journalism these days--reporters prefer to speculate about the consequences and possible interpretations of the words of those they report on rather than seeking to explain and understand the debates of which they are a part). One hint comes in the following passage.

Followers of AFL president John Sweeney, who has lined up the votes for re-election, remain unapologetic about their strategy--if for no other reason than they regard the Republicans as deeply and reflexively anti-union. The GOP "is a mortal threat," says Mike Podhorzer, the federation's deputy political director. But [SEIU president Andy] Stern's assessment of the Democrats is equally as harsh. "They just don't get what working people are looking for," he says--even though his union backed the party's 2004 presidential nomination.

Put aside the fact that Stern's assessment of the Democratic party is obviously not as harsh as Podhorzer's of the GOP. Instead, just consider the content of what Stern said. It is clear that he is not averse to supporting Democratic politicians in general (after all, the SEIU supported Kerry, which may not be, contrary to the author's suggestion, a sign of hypocrisy), nor is he a necessarily a friend to the GOP. Rather, Stern's assertion suggests that he will be supportive of politicians when they are supportive of the political needs of the workers his union represents.

Now, it seems to me that this is exactly the sentiment that the president of a union should be expressing. Indeed, the article reinforces without explicitly mentioning the idea that the AFL-CIO's standard criteria for choosing which politicians to support seem to be twofold.

(1) membership in the Democratic party
(2) "electability"

Let us not forget that these are the criteria according to which John Kerry was selected as the Democrats' last presidential nominee. Perhaps we should also remember that SEIU did not support Kerry until after the primary--Dean initially had their support (even within the current structure of the AFL-CIO, individual member unions make their own decisions about endorsing political candidates). About the second criterion, the assumption seems to be that "electability" means appeal to that mythical creature the "swing voter." The party just has to turn out its base (all of whom will of course vote for the right guy) and appeal to enough middle-of-the-road types to win an election. So "electability" translates, in the most recent example, into "not seen to be soft on terror, i.e., military background."

Besides John Kerry, the other SEIU-backed candidate whose campaign I have worked for was Joan Cleary, candidate for Allegheny County Council. This was a primary campaign, and her most serious opponent was Dominic Serapiglia, the son of a well known local politician and the endorsed Democrat. Cleary won the primary and the election, thanks to the efforts of SEIU, which reportedly spent $200,000 on the campaign. The significant thing about this is that Cleary is a member of SEIU--a registered nurse--rather than a member of the local Democratic establishment. She had no name recognition going in, unlike her opponent. She most decidedly did not have that elusive quality, electability. One result was that the Allegheny County Labor Council, which describes itself as a local branch of the AFL-CIO, endorsed her opponent, Serapiglia.

Now, Serapiglia and Cleary are both Democrats. So this is most certainly not an example of the AFL-CIO supporting a Democrat and the SEIU supporting a non-Democrat. Instead, we have an example of the AFL-CIO supporting the establishment party candidate and the SEIU putting up one of their own. Is this an example of the sort of disunity that the Newsweek article attempts to convince us is a "disaster" for the Democratic party? I suspect that it is. And I am not persuaded.

The problem with organized labor in America these days is that most labor is not organized. The unions are still a powerful force in electoral politics because of the resources at their disposal, and the Democrats are glad to have them in their pocket. But the philosophical core of the labor movement is that workers are stronger if they work together, and, if unity is correlated with strength, the American worker is not very strong at present. Even in the unions' relationship with the Democratic party, it seems the political party has the upper hand--they tell the unions who to elect, and they do it. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the political party be responsible to the people who support their candidates? Now, it does make sense that the Democratic party should fear the change heralded by Andy Stern and SEIU. After all, as new workers are educated and organized to fight for their economic interests, they will not automatically vote for people like Kerry and Serapiglia. Instead, in accordance with their newfound political understanding, won't they vote for whomever seems to have the priorities of the American working class in mind? The label "endorsed Democrat" will no longer be enough to secure union support. And, with a bigger portion of labor organized, the unions will be in a position to demand even more from those politicians they do choose to support. It would seem the net effect would be a leftward swing in the party, and, with enough organizing, in American politics in general.

So the author of the Newsweek article was right to see the potential rift in the AFL-CIO as trouble for the Democratic party, provided you think of the Democratic party as consisting of its current power structure. If the unions can increase their strength and at the same time demand responsivenes from the party in return for their support, then the current crop of centrists will lose power--those who seem to believe that "electability" means being all things to everyone, which in turn means ignoring your base (whose support you take for granted) and pretending to agree with your Republican opponents (and, in many cases, actually agreeing with them). I am not sure that is a bad thing.

There was some expressed mystification after the 2004 presidential campaign that so many workers, making low wages, voted against their own economic interests. Wouldn't it help if more of them had the education and organization provided by the unions? While that would be no guarantee of support for the John Kerrys of the world, it would certainly mean the end of the George Bushes.