CHICAGO--Observers of organized labor fall into at least two very different camps as they watch the earthquake occurring within the AFL-CIO during last week's historic quadrennial constitutional convention.

While some academics, attorneys, and interest groups interviewed by BNA said the departure of two of the labor federation's largest unions on July 25 and the prospect of future defections would shoot another hole in a sinking labor movement, others predicted the schism would make it much stronger.

On one hand, conventional logic holds that the division and infighting witnessed following the defection of the Service Employees International Union and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters points to a future of weakness and ineffectiveness for the overall labor movement. The departure of these labor powerhouses and the potential departure of the United Food and Commercial Workers union and UNITE HERE are all the more damaging at a time when union density continues to sink and organized labor has been unable to propel labor-friendly candidates into the White House and Congress. Since these interviews UFCW July 29 disaffiliated from the federation (see related story in News  ).

Indeed, leaders of the labor federation have not hidden such fears, frustration and anger during the week-long convention.

"We've said all along that the departure or disaffiliation of any union hurts the labor movement," AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told a group of reporters July 26. "It doesn't just hurt the AFL-CIO, it hurts workers out there. We are under the biggest assault we've been under in the last 80 years. We have more people against us trying to hurt workers than we've ever had before. There's a maxim that you don't divide in the face of the enemy."

But there is a competing logic that is also emerging from long-time labor movement observers, who believe the fracture could represent the seed of the AFL-CIO's rebirth.

"If they (the AFL-CIO and Change to Win) play nice, if they observe certain ground rules with respect to organizing and go after the 30 [million] to 60 million people that research tells us would consider joining a union, you could see a spike in union membership," said Bob Bruno, a professor of labor relations at the University of Illinois. "Then you could have a reunification at some time in the future with higher levels of union density. That's essentially what happened in 1955 with the merger of the AFL and the CIO."

Observers from both labor and management circles agree the split will likely generate at least a short-term bump in union organizing drives and union activism.

Philip B. Rosen, managing partner of the New York City office of Jackson Lewis LLP and chief of the law firm's national labor practice, said the Change to Win coalition has essentially created a "competitive model" for organizing--something that has not really existed within the labor movement for many years.

Greater Emphasis on Organizing Sought

In defecting from the AFL-CIO, SEIU President Andrew Stern was essentially challenging the labor movement to address organizing in a new and serious way, Rosen said. The result is a new labor federation, envisioned by Stern, committed to aggressive organizing and activism. But Rosen said the SEIU/IBT departure also caused the AFL-CIO to assess its own failures and adjust. Indeed, convention delegates have solidly supported AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney's plan deploying $22.5 million to organizing. Delegates also supported the creation of strategic Industry Coordinating Committees to achieve greater coordination in organizing efforts.
Rosen, who represents management in his practice, said these developments ought to cause employers to sit up and take notice.

"If the employer community is sitting back and saying 'this will help me in my dealings with unions,' they are fooling themselves," Rosen told BNA. "My reaction is the split will result in significant competition and that will lead to more aggressive organizing activity and more significant efforts at the bargaining table to achieve the labor agenda."

Rosen said nonunion companies should expect more coordinated organizing campaigns within their organizations. Unionized organizations should expect more aggressive bargaining and pushes for national bargaining, industrywide bargaining, and coordinated contract expiration dates. Rosen said he expects organizing drives and activism to be particularly aggressive in the service, hospitality, and health care industries and within governmental organizations.

Richard Hurd, a professor of labor relations at Cornell University, agreed, and predicted a period of activism involving both Change to Win coalition members and unions still loyal to the AFL-CIO.

"The Change to Win coalition, to their credit, has recognized and verbalized the need for dramatic change," Hurd told BNA. "They are creating a model that could work. Will it work? It is still very hard to assess."

Hurd added, "there is a possibility that they [Change to Win] could stimulate the AFL-CIO to coalesce around an alternative model. Then you would see an opportunity for unions to feed off each others' energy and find some success with organizing."

Pat Cleary, senior vice president for communications for the National Association of Manufacturers, said his members are prepared for additional organizing drives in the future. He said the Change to Win coalition also is forcing the AFL-CIO to refocus its efforts from politics to meat-and-potatoes unionism.

'Thirty Years of Neglect.'

"This (split) is the result of 30 years of neglect," Cleary told BNA. "The AFL-CIO stopped being a labor movement and became a political movement. This split is the result of this body simply ignoring its members. And if you don't believe me, just ask Andy Stern."
But management attorney Howard Bernstein said he doubted the division in the AFL-CIO would lead to long-term gains in union density.

Bernstein, a partner in the Chicago office of Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP, said the immediate impact of the split would be more organizing and more activism. He stressed, however, that the model being presented by Stern is not unique and relevant enough to mobilize large numbers of workers to sign representation cards on a long-term basis.

"If you are going to reinvent yourself by breaking off and beating your chest and saying you're going to do a lot more organizing, but you do nothing to look at your product, I'm not sure this means much," Bernstein told BNA. "I think organized labor has to figure out why people aren't buying what it's selling."

Bernstein said organized labor's role during its heyday in the 1940s and 1950s was obvious--it was the only structure a worker could turn to during a moment of trouble or mistreatment. Whether the problem involved discrimination, an injury, a sickness in the family, or inferior wages, Bernstein said the union was capable of providing at least a sympathetic ear and in many cases a solution.

But with major labor and employment reforms over the last 50 years, including Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Bernstein said the relevance of the labor movement has been diminished. Ironically, he said the labor movement brought these improvements to American workers.

"They literally legislated themselves out of business," Bernstein said.

Randel Johnson, vice president of labor, employment benefits, and immigration at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, agreed.

"Everyone [at the AFL-CIO] is worried that they aren't devoting enough resources to organizing, but maybe their problem is that their message just isn't effective," Johnson said. "Maybe their message that 'business is bad, so join a union' just isn't working. Frankly, I don't see what the new message is."

Ken Boehm, chairman of the anti-labor National Legal and Policy Center, said labor's declining fortunes are related to the failures of its leaders. In light of the corruption found in some of the Change to Win unions, he rejected the notion that the coalition could provide workers with a healthy alternative for change. Boehm's group announced July 26 it would raise up to $2 million to provide free legal assistance to workers seeking to leave their unions.

"Workers do not believe union bosses represent their interests," Boehm said. "Corruption remains a huge problem in unions like the Teamsters, Laborers, SEIU, and UNITE HERE. Ironically, it is the most corrupt unions that are among the dissidents. It would be inaccurate to call them reformers."

Potential for Long-Term Success Seen

But the University of Illinois' Bruno said the Change to Win coalition may well be holding up a competing model of unionism that carries relevance and the potential for long-term success.
Bruno said Stern is calling for a strong, centralized labor federation featuring a smaller number of larger, more vigorous unions organized around industries. This model, which resembles structures seen in Europe, stands in contrast to the loose, decentralized and consensus-oriented model exemplified in Sweeney's vision for the AFL-CIO.

Bruno said many labor leaders still affiliated with the AFL-CIO realize the Sweeney model is flawed. Delegates have voted to support a number of resolutions and amendments that seek to achieve some aspects of Stern's model. One of those proposals calls for more union mergers. Despite the AFL-CIO's dispute with Change to Win, Bruno said the federation is in many respects moving toward the coalition's vision.

"I think there are a lot of people at the convention that are not so sure they are on the right side of history," Bruno said.

Source:  bna.com