The Twu And The Afl-cio

[TWU informer]

Four major unions boycott AFL-CIO convention

Four major unions decided Sunday to boycott the AFL-CIO convention, setting the stage for one or more to bolt from the 50-year-old federation in a battle over how to reverse organized labor's decades-long decline, The Associated Press has learned.

The unions, representing about one-third of the AFL-CIO's 13 million members, planned to announce the decision Sunday afternoon, a day before the convention opens, according to three labor officials familiar with the failed negotiations to avoid the walkout.

None of the four dissident unions planned to formally severe ties from the AFL-CIO on Sunday, officials said, but they are now poised to do so at a later date.

The protest is led by Andy Stern, president of the federation's largest union, the 1.8 million-member Service Employees International Union. He is virtually certain to pull his union out of the AFL-CIO in coming days, with hopes of bringing his allies along, officials said.

Joining him in the boycott will be the Teamsters, United Food and Commercial Workers and UNITE HERE, a group of textile and hotel workers, according to the labor officials.

The four unions already had formed the Change to Win Coalition to pressure AFL-CIO President John Sweeney to undertake major changes to the federation.

Two other unions that are part of the dissident coalition had not planned to leave the Chicago convention: the Laborers International Union of North America and the United Farm Workers.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, a member of the coalition, left the AFL-CIO in 2002.

Leaders of the dissident unions say the AFL-CIO leadership has done too little to stop the steep decline in union membership nationwide. In addition to seeking the ouster of Sweeney, they have demanded more money for organizing and the power to force mergers of smaller unions.

Sweeney's allies contend he has taken steps to reform the AFL-CIO, meeting many of the dissidents' demands in an effort to avoid a split. They say a divided House of Labor will embolden employers and anti-union Republicans at the worst possible time for workers.

Globalization, automation and the transition from an industrial-based economy have forced hundreds of thousands of unionized workers out of jobs, weakening labor's role in the workplace.

When the AFL-CIO formed 50 years ago, union membership was at its zenith with one of every three private-sector workers belonging to a labor group. Now, less than 8% of private-sector workers are unionized. Of the total work force, including government jobs, about 12% of people belong to a union.

Stern's allies and some outside labor experts note that labor reached its peak in the 1950s while the AFL and CIO were competing against each other. Still, the prospect of a dividing labor movement worries Democratic leaders who rely on the AFL-CIO's money and manpower on Election Day.

In the 2004 elections, households with union members accounted for 24% of the votes, and people from those households sided with Democratic candidate John Kerry by 5.8 million votes.

Unions ran nearly 260 phone banks and mailed out at least 30 million pieces of political literature in 16 states, a massive effort that primarily benefited Democrats.

"Anybody who thinks that a divided labor movement is going to make them better off ought to join George Bush's administration, because the only people who would applaud this perilous adventure is George Bush and Karl Rove," said Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the largest union backing Sweeney.

Rove is the president's chief political adviser.

Democratic Party leaders were reluctant to take sides, fearing the wrath of whatever faction emerges strongest from the fight. Most agreed that a divided AFL-CIO would be harmful to the party in the short term. Privately, some said they could only hope that the battle jolts the House of Labor from its decades-only slump.

"Anything that sidetracks us from our goals ... is not healthy," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of the House campaign committee.

Added Democratic consultant Steve Elmendorf, who has long ties to the AFL-CIO: "Obviously, if you have a disunited labor movement, you're not going to have as good of a political operation."

Labor experts predicted a rough road ahead for both factions.

"What a divided AFL-CIO would do is signal to opponents of the labor movement that the House of Labor is in disarray and therefore is vulnerable," said Gary Chaison, industrial relations professor at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.

"Employer opposition to organizing might increase and I think that political opponents might feel emboldened, because they would see it as a sign of weakness."

Andrew Kramer, a labor lawyer in Washington who represents employers, said a labor split would not necessarily bode well for his clients if, for example, it led to competing collective bargaining units and instability within a work force.

 

[AMFAMAN]

"What a divided AFL-CIO would do is signal to opponents of the labor movement that the House of Labor is in disarray and therefore is vulnerable," said Gary Chaison, industrial relations professor at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.

"Employer opposition to organizing might increase and I think that political opponents might feel emboldened, because they would see it as a sign of weakness."

[post="283614"][/post]​

It's not like a united AFL-CIO is doing anything for labor for a long time now. And employer opposition to organizing, well we all know about that at AA.

 

[Bob Owens]

"What a divided AFL-CIO would do is signal to opponents of the labor movement that the House of Labor is in disarray and therefore is vulnerable," said Gary Chaison, industrial relations professor at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.

"Employer opposition to organizing might increase and I think that political opponents might feel emboldened, because they would see it as a sign of weakness."


Yea employers might start demanding and getting massive pay and benifit cuts.

Seems like the worst case scenario has become a reality for the workers, even if our leaders have gone unscathed. (In 2003 when we took a 25% cut in compensation Jim Little got an 8% increase in pay.)


Divided house of labor? They speak as if this is a new possibility.

For the AFL-CIO "Labor" only includes affiliated unions, the hundreds of independant unions are not consider "Labor" by the elitist AFL-CIO, so right off the bat labor has been divided.

Many union leaders are more willing to fight their own members who want reform and performance than they are to fight companies for better working conditions.

Labor is divided and todays labor leaders are determined to keep it that way because it benifits them.

Even within the AFL-CIO there has been a history of division and weakness. When AFL-CIO affiliated PATCO went on strike their fellow AFL-CIO unions turned on them and supported the actions of Reagan by not joining PATCO.

When the AFL-CIO affiliated IAM was locked out by Lorenzo in the early eighties at Continental its AFL-CIO affiliated ALPA Pilots arrogantly crossed the IAM pickets figuring that the savings that Lorenzo was getting by scabbing out the IAMs work would be used to pay them.

In 2003 when Judges theatened UAL workers Jim Little demanded that TWU leaders refrain from pledging support to UAL workers.

Divided house of Labor?

While the leaders may pose for pictures together the only time they stick together is to screw each others members or to support politicians who will help supress members rights to have more of a say in their own unions.

The sad fact is that those who criticize Sterns efforts and who support maintaining the the labor movements status quo are people who have ass kissed their way off the shop floor and have made a career out of blaming the members for the decline of labor as they sit back, with at most a GED or a phony diploma from a defunt diploma mill, (Yea Little, Im talking about you again) collecting six figure salaries and perks that they would never think of trying to get for the members. For them fighting puts what they feel they "earned" at risk, and most of todays labor leaders dont feel that their members are worth it. Thankfully there are a few that feel differently.

We should support Andy Stern. While his plan may have its faults, at least he has presented a plan. The rest just sit back, present no plan and hide behind their conveinient excuse of "if only the members would participate".



I think that Sterns efforts will destabilize labor, as some commentators are claiming, which is a good thing, considering that Labors "stability" is what is causing "labors" decline. The stability of labor, which means means no labor disruptions, union regimes who never face membership votes that are only removed by death or indictment, concessions instead of strikes, concilliation at any cost in order to maintain a steady dues flow, the dues flow that provides the six figure salaries and generous pensions perks etc for unaccountable union leaders who simply remove challengers, is the true cause of labors decline. The fact is that the movement is long overdue for a shakeup. Lord knows the American worker has suffereed enough providing stability for incompetant union leadership.

The irony of the whole thing is that those who are against Stern are the same people who have made change from within impossible, while its true the Bush and Rove are the enemies of workers its the old fossils that occupy the top positions of many unions who have been in positions of power, in some cases from the time of Lyndon Johnson, in many unions that present the greatest danger to the American worker. Bush will be gone in 2008, however getting rid of the old fossils that have made themselves rich by selling us out can remain in place for as long as they breathe.

 

[PRINCESS KIDAGAKASH]

Ok, TWU supporters what's your take on this? CIO? :wub: TWUer? :wub: J7915? :wub: HSS? :wub:

 

[Bob Owens]

Ok, TWU supporters what's your take on this? CIO? :wub: TWUer? :wub: J7915?  :wub:  HSS?  :wub:

[post="283628"][/post]​

"Unite the strength of everyone who works in the same industry so we can negotiate with today's huge global corporations for everyone's benefit."


This is the phrase that terrifies the likes of them. They like the status quo. So do officials in the IAM and other unions in the highly fragmented AFL-CIO. By keeping us divided it keeps them in their positions. They do nothing to help us then blame us for their inability to help us. They know that the movement is weak, but since they personally are doing OK tehy seek to maintain the status quo.

Stern and the Change to Win Coalition (http://www.changetowin.org/) are preaching true industrial unionism yet those who claim to support industrial unionism do not support him. Why? Because even though it might benifit the members, their positions are at risk. So its not about what is good for the members or workers its about what is good for Union Bosses.

What we are seeing is the revelation of the true ideology of the leaders of most of todays union bosses- not Craft unionism, not Industrial Unionism but " Business Unionism". Sterns moves are forcing these people to expose themselves as much as they try to continue the masquerade.

Business unionism is about as bad for workers as company unionism, in fact as far as the effect on workers the results are indistinguishable. While the debate may go on about Craft verses Industrial unionism, and business unionists will often try to make any debate fall into that, no one, even business unionists, will present an arguement in favor of business unionism. They never stand up and say "I believe in Business unionism, instead they try to claim that they are either Craft or Industrial unionists.

While we hear these leaders accuse the insurgents of betraying and splitting up labor they avoid the issues. Just as the business unionists from the TWU refused to address the question I repeatedly posted to them "What is wrong with uniting all the mechanics in one union".

The Change to win coalition's plan basically calls upon union leaders to do what union leaders have no problem asking their members to do. Put the good of the whole first so that all workers can benifit. It calls for a major restructuring of the labor movement, a movement that is undeniably in decline. Sterns best accomplishment is that he has correctly identified the problem, and contrary to what has been packaged, sold and accepted by business unionists its not the memberships fault, its the structure, a failed structure, and its the union bosses that will spare no expense fighting their own members to keep the structure as is because "as is" provides these union bosses a lifestyle that their true ability and education could never otherwise achieve.

 

[TWU informer]

This just in....


The AFL-CIO problems that we are currently witness to is all AMFA's fault.

 

[Hackman]

This just in....
The AFL-CIO problems that we are currently witness to is all AMFA's fault.

[post="283678"][/post]​

Yeah, it must be because twu represented employees like myself that know the ONLY path to real change is to dump the twu and company union sellouts like unelected Jim Do-little and his band of felons, drunkards, and liars. Its all AMFA's fault the twu is worthless.

The unions that are thinking of leaving the afl-cio know the same thing, and the appointed old fossils like Sweeney will never allow real and needed changes. He might lose his $750 a night party suites and free booze.

I hope Mr. Stern pulls his members and his money out of the worthless afl-cio.

Labor is losing more and more every day, its far past the time for a house cleaning.

 

[TWU informer]

Here is more on the story...

THE AFL-CIO IS WORTHLESS AND TRUTH IS FINALLY OUT.
SINCE THE MERGER OF THE AFL and the CIO, THE UNSKILLED HAVE DOMINATED THE DIRECTION OF THE LABOR MOVEMENT. THAT IS WHY FAILURE IS AT HAND.


The AFL-CIO succumbed to division Sunday, with its largest union deciding to bolt the 50-year-old federation and three others poised to do so in a dispute over how to reverse organized labor's long slide.

The four unions, representing nearly one-third of the AFL-CIO's 13 million members, announced Sunday they would boycott the federation's convention that begins Monday. They are part of the Coalition to Win, a group of seven unions vowing to reform the labor movement - outside the AFL-CIO if necessary.

The Service Employees International Union, with 1.8 million members, plans to announce Monday that it is leaving the AFL-CIO, said several labor officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the developments.

The Teamsters union also was on the verge of disaffiliating, and would likely to be the first to follow SEIU's lead, the officials said. Two other boycotting unions were likely to leave the federation: United Food and Commercial Workers and UNITE HERE, a group of textile and hotel workers.


"Our differences are so fundamental and so principled that at this point I don't think there is a chance there will be a change of course," said UFCW President Joe Hansen.

"Our differences have become unresolvable," said Anna Burger, chairman of the Change to Win Coalition which is setting itself up to be a rival of the AFL-CIO. "Today will be remembered as a rebirth of union strength in America."

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, expected to easily win re-election over the objections of the dissidents, said his team "bent over backward" to appease the dissidents "until it's given us a pain in the you-know-where." SEIU president Andy Stern, leading the breakaway effort, is a former protege of Sweeney's.

"It's a shame for working people that before the first vote has been cast, four unions have decided that if they can't win, they won't show up for the game," Sweeney said.

Gerald McEntee, president of a government employees' union with more than 1 million members, accused his boycotting colleagues of aiding labor's political foes. "The only people who happy about this are President Bush and his crowd," the Sweeney ally said.

Rank-and-file members of the 52 non-boycotting AFL-CIO affiliates expressed confusion and anger over the action. "If there was ever a time we workers need to stick together, it's today," said Olegario Bustamante, a steelworker from Cicero, Ill.

The boycott means the unions will not pay $7 million in back dues to the AFL-CIO on Monday, an act that some labor officials consider tantamount to quitting the federation. If all four boycotting unions quit the federation, they would take about $35 million from the AFL-CIO, which has already been forced to layoff a quarter of its 400-person staff.

Two other unions that are part of the Change to Win Coalition did not plan to leave the Chicago convention: the Laborers International Union of North America and the United Farm Workers. They are the least likely of the coalition members to leave the AFL-CIO, though the Laborers show signs of edging that way, officials said.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the seventh member of the coalition, left the AFL-CIO in 2002.

Leaders of the dissident unions say the AFL-CIO leadership has failed to stop the steep decline in union membership. In addition to seeking the ouster of Sweeney, they have demanded more money for organizing, power to force mergers of smaller unions and other changes they say are key to adapting to vast changes in society and the economy.


Globalization, automation and the transition from an industrial-based economy have forced hundreds of thousands of unionized workers out of jobs, weakening labor's role in the workplace.

When the AFL-CIO formed 50 years ago, union membership was at its zenith with one of every three private-sector workers belonging to a labor group. Now, less than 8 percent of private-sector workers are unionized.

The dissidents largely represent workers in retail and service sectors, the heart of the emerging new U.S. economy. Sweeney's allies are primarily industrial unions whose workers are facing the brunt of global economic shifts.

A divided labor movement worries Democratic leaders who rely on the AFL-CIO's money and manpower on Election Day.

"Anything that sidetracks us from our goals ... is not healthy," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of the House campaign committee.


In the 2004 campaign, unions ran nearly 260 phone banks and mailed out at least 30 million pieces of political literature in 16 states, mostly on behalf of Democrats.

Experts said the split might deepen labor's woes.

"Employer opposition to organizing might increase and I think that political opponents might feel emboldened, because they would see it as a sign of weakness," said Gary Chaison, industrial relations professor at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.

Others said competition might be good for the labor movement.

 

[TWU informer]

Statement of James P. Hoffa on the Teamsters Disaffiliation from the AFL-CIO
Monday July 25, 2:30 pm ET


WASHINGTON, July 25 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a statement of James P. Hoffa on the Teamsters disaffiliation from the AFL-CIO:
Good afternoon. This is an historic day. I join my brother Andy Stern and the great SEIU in a joint announcement.

I am here today to announce that the General Executive Board of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters has unanimously voted to withdraw our membership from the AFL-CIO.

This decision has been reached through a lengthy and thoughtful process. It has been a difficult decision to make and we do not take this step lightly.

The Teamsters General Executive Board is directly elected by our 1.4 million members to chart the course of our great union. And after months of discussion and deliberation, we have made our decision as a matter of principle and have decided on a new course of action.

We submitted, in good faith, proposals to dramatically change the direction of the AFL-CIO to stem the losses that we have endured over the past decade. We proposed that the AFL-CIO embark on a new course of action that would not only protect our existing Teamster members and their families, but lead to thousands of new working men and women having the opportunity to organize into a strong union that would give them the chance to achieve the American dream -- to own their own home, send their kids to college and plan a strong retirement.

In our view, we must have more union members in order to change the political climate that is undermining workers rights in this country.

The AFL-CIO has chosen the opposite approach.

Today's decision means that we have chosen a course of growth and strength for the American Labor Movement based on organizing new members.

We have partnered with seven strong and progressive unions in the Change to Win coalition to organize the unorganized and create real power for the working families of America.

Earlier today the leadership of the Change To Win coalition met with our respective organizing directors to set in motion a process of building larger scale strategic organizing capacity.

This is just the beginning of a new era for America's workers.

And let me be clear, the Teamsters will remain the bulwark of the labor movement. Striking workers, no matter what union they belong to, can always count on the Teamsters for support and assistance. That is our history and tradition and we will never waiver from our proud role as defenders of America's working families.

We will continue to work with our brothers and sisters in the Building Trades, in State Federations and Central Labor Councils to achieve justice for all working people. But let me be clear, our coalition will not allow corporate America to pit one union against another to the detriment of our members and their families.

We wish our brothers and sisters that remain in the AFL-CIO the best of luck in their efforts. We pledge cooperation with the AFL-CIO on all the fronts that affect working families.

 

[local 12 proud]

So can we expect the TEAMSTERS to now raid those Totally Worthless Unions (TWU) and give real unionism back to the blue collar? or is this just chest pumping? I have one friend who works at UPS and another who is retired, they are content with the Teamsters and claim they would never change UNIONS! My take is they will get you the best pay and benefits as long as you produce. Slugs are not welcome, what a concept to actually earn your pay!

 

[TWU informer]

I am for anything that places the AMT in the majority rule position at the bargaining table, and rids us of Company Unionism!

I dont really care what the name of the Union we change to is, as long as those simple beliefs are advocated.

 

[Bob Owens]

So can we expect the TEAMSTERS to now raid those Totally Worthless Unions (TWU) and give real unionism back to the blue collar? or is this just chest pumping? I have one friend who works at UPS and another who is retired, they are content with the Teamsters and claim they would never change UNIONS! My take is they will get you the best pay and benefits as long as you produce. Slugs are not welcome, what a concept to actually earn your pay!

[post="283895"][/post]​

While the Teamsters certainly have their faults(see http://www.tdu.org/) UPS mechanics are the highest paid in the industry.


However with the Teamsters out of the AFL-CIO it could offer us the opportunity to rid ourselves of the pro-company TWU.

Lets say we start a card drive to go to the Teamsters. Not just us but everyone. Stores, TitleIII, Title IV, dispatch and maintenance. Now what arguements could the TWU use against wanting to go Teamsters?

The Teamsters are more than 10 times the size of the TWU so they dont need AFL-CIO affiliation.

The Teamsters will take us all.

The Teamsters have a much better track record for improving members lives than the TWU.

The Teamsters fight.

Teamster mechanics are the highest paid in the industry, TWU supporters have been eager to point that out for some time.

Hell, anything is better than the TWU right? If we cant get enough Title III and Tulsa guys to sign AMFA cards we might have better luck going for the Teamsters. At least we will be rid of Little, Gless and Yingst!!!

 

[AMFAMAN]

So can we expect the TEAMSTERS to now raid those Totally Worthless Unions (TWU) and give real unionism back to the blue collar? or is this just chest pumping? I have one friend who works at UPS and another who is retired, they are content with the Teamsters and claim they would never change UNIONS! My take is they will get you the best pay and benefits as long as you produce. Slugs are not welcome, what a concept to actually earn your pay!

[post="283895"][/post]​

Leaders from each side vowed to refrain from recruiting members from opposing unions in overlapping industries. "We're not setting up the federation to go raid and undermine what has been accomplished [by other unions]," said Teamsters President James Hoffa.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflas..._0978_db016.htm

 

[Bob Owens]

Leaders from each side vowed to refrain from recruiting members from opposing unions in overlapping industries. "We're not setting up the federation to go raid and undermine what has been accomplished [by other unions]," said Teamsters President James Hoffa.

Well as we often see during Divorces, while they may start out somewhat friendly, they often turn bitter.

Other than saving the dues paid to the AFL-CIO, being able to raid (which was one of the reasons the Carpenters left a few years ago), is just about the only reason to leave. The No-raiding clause of the AFL-CIO is the biggest draw back for workers.

One of the primary points of the "change to win" program is to unite workers within industries into unions that specialize in that industry. While they apparently wanted to merge smaller unions now that they have left the AFL-CIO they can seek a more direct path to making strong unions a reality.

One of the Teamsters chief complaints with the AFL-CIO was that other unions(they cited the IAM) were dragging down wages by offering concessionary contracts, making it harder for the Teamsters to make gains for their members in the same industry.

Should the Teamsters decide to change that position-no raiding- which I believe they will, if the split remains permanant, they would probably be very successful.

The CIO with its aggressive bargaining policies and willingness to take on both management and the government won over many AFL members. AFL unions had to become more aggressive in order to keep the CIO unions from taking their members. With two factions that are competing for members who have options for representation unions will have to actually do something for their members or risk losing them to a well funded rival.

Union leaders like Jim Little can no longer sit back and say if you dont like the TWU "Get involved" while smugly knowing that the barriers to change from within will keep them safely in control. Members will soon realize that the barriers to change from within are more formidable than the barriers to go to another union. Its like trying to change a Chevette into a Corvette, its easier to just get the Corvette

Most TWU members feel that we have no union, we just pay dues. The performance of the TWU who gave up such things as OT for hours worked in excess of 40, holiday pay, sick pay and a huge pay cut that exceeded that of even non-union and bankrupt airlines would support the position that organizing the members of the TWU at American Airlines is justified.

The arguement that the concessions saved jobs is much harder to sell to Title III who did not have anything like overhaul at risk. Title III lost both jobs and pay, they simply had no options for representation before.

The fact is despite what unions leaders have claimed for years, union members would love to become invloved if they only had leaders that they could have confidence in and felt their sacrifices would pay off. Given the choice between a union that will fight to make things better and one that sells them out to maintain dues flow the members would choose to fight.

Should the split remain permanent,I seriously doubt that the Teamsters will stay with the No-raiding position. There is no other way to meet the objectives of the coalition. In order to get new members, from the unorganized , these unions must prove what unions can do. Having a huge pool of "organized " workers whose unions give massive concessions while collecting dues and giving raises to union bosses makes organizing the unorganized a harder sell. All WallMart has to do is show how unions sell out their members. They can show how we lost 25% of our pay as Jim Little got himself an 8% increase in pay. They can show how Jim Little is appointed, not voted on, thereby providing an arguement that unions do not give members a voice, just another boss-that they pay. The airline industry provides a crystal clear example of how bad unions can be. The fractured industry where members are forced to pay dues even in RTW states because of the RLA to organizations that do nothing for them is the best anti-union arguement they have. Without addressing in house cleaning selling unionism to the unorganized will be nothing more than an exercise in futliity.

 

[local 12 proud]

Ive talked with several mechanics on my dock who refused to sign AMFA cards because they were less than impressed with AMFA's record, that being said these same individuals say they would sign a TEAMSTERS card in a flash because they know their record. I personally prefer a Craft Union, but If we are unable to get that election due primarily to TULSA perhaps a drive should start in order to replace the meek and timid TWU with the TEAMSTERS who are truly making a stand for the blue collar by cutting the umbilical chord with Big Buissness Unionism, I certainly have no doubt whatsoever that we would fare no worse under any other union than what weve been fed by the TWU!......JMHO