Labor's divisions widen as membership declines. - In 1953, 36% of private-sector workers were union members; today, fewer than 8% belong.
AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney last week won the latest round in a bitter internal clash over the future of the labor movement by insisting that more money go for future campaigns to unseat Republicans than for trying to shore up the federation's sagging membership.
That showdown pitted Sweeney, AFSCME's Gerald McEntee and the Steelworkers' Leo Gerard against such powerhouse dissidents as the Teamsters' James P. Hoffa, the Service Employees' Andrew L. Stern and the Laborers' Terence M. O'Sullivan.
Since the merger of the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations 50 years ago, labor has been in a relentless downward spiral, and factions have bitterly squabbled for years over how best to reverse the trend.
"These are the darkest days that I have ever seen for American workers across the United States," said McEntee, one of Sweeney's strongest allies.
By a 2 to 1 margin, the AFL-CIO's executive committee last week . . . adopted the Sweeney plan to nearly double spending on political and legislative mobilization, raising the AFL-CIO's annual commitment to these activities to $45 million.
In 1953, 36 percent of private-sector workers were union members; today, fewer than 8 percent belong to unions. Sweeney argued that the only way to stem the collapse of unionization is to win back Democratic control of the Congress and the White House. Union organizing, in the view of Sweeney and his backers, will be futile in the face of hostile Republican leaders and regulators who allow employers to block union-certification elections and use stalling tactics and threats to discourage organizing drives.
Hoffa, Stern and Wilhelm countered that labor must build up its membership through organizing drives before it can effectively flex its political muscle. They say that over the past decade the AFL-CIO and its member unions have dramatically increased political activities, only to suffer defeat at the polls while seeing a widening of income inequality and a steady decline in union membership.
But some experts warn that neither proposed strategy will work in the face of such overwhelming forces as globalization, the shift of production and services to low-wage countries, and the emergence of Wal-Mart and other mega-corporations that have undermined -- and in some cases obliterated -- union efforts.
Today, the vast majority of union members -- 84 percent -- live in only 12 states, leaving workers with little organized power in much of the country . . . .
(3-7-05 The Washington Post.)
That showdown pitted Sweeney, AFSCME's Gerald McEntee and the Steelworkers' Leo Gerard against such powerhouse dissidents as the Teamsters' James P. Hoffa, the Service Employees' Andrew L. Stern and the Laborers' Terence M. O'Sullivan.
Since the merger of the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations 50 years ago, labor has been in a relentless downward spiral, and factions have bitterly squabbled for years over how best to reverse the trend.
"These are the darkest days that I have ever seen for American workers across the United States," said McEntee, one of Sweeney's strongest allies.
By a 2 to 1 margin, the AFL-CIO's executive committee last week . . . adopted the Sweeney plan to nearly double spending on political and legislative mobilization, raising the AFL-CIO's annual commitment to these activities to $45 million.
In 1953, 36 percent of private-sector workers were union members; today, fewer than 8 percent belong to unions. Sweeney argued that the only way to stem the collapse of unionization is to win back Democratic control of the Congress and the White House. Union organizing, in the view of Sweeney and his backers, will be futile in the face of hostile Republican leaders and regulators who allow employers to block union-certification elections and use stalling tactics and threats to discourage organizing drives.
Hoffa, Stern and Wilhelm countered that labor must build up its membership through organizing drives before it can effectively flex its political muscle. They say that over the past decade the AFL-CIO and its member unions have dramatically increased political activities, only to suffer defeat at the polls while seeing a widening of income inequality and a steady decline in union membership.
But some experts warn that neither proposed strategy will work in the face of such overwhelming forces as globalization, the shift of production and services to low-wage countries, and the emergence of Wal-Mart and other mega-corporations that have undermined -- and in some cases obliterated -- union efforts.
Today, the vast majority of union members -- 84 percent -- live in only 12 states, leaving workers with little organized power in much of the country . . . .
(3-7-05 The Washington Post.)
posted by Sid Cottingham | 6:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home