WASHINGTON — The AFL-CIO’s loss of two large unions this week
hit Democrats and the labor federation hard. But this move by the
Teamsters and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) may
not hurt Democrats as much as they fear. And large employers are
unlikely to get a reprieve from union attacks.
Teamsters President James P. Hoffa and SEIU President Andrew
Stern, who announced on Monday July 25 that their unions were
disaffiliating from the AFL-CIO, claim that the federation, under
the direction of John Sweeney, has squandered efforts to expand
union membership in favor of electoral political activity, nearly
all on behalf of Democrats. The split seems to be about the
fundamental question: What should be organized labor’s core
mission? In fact, it is about union strategy.
While Hoffa and Stern claim that Sweeney has focused excessively
on politics, their own unions haven’t been shy about political
activity. During the 2004 election cycle, SEIU gave out $2,284,875
in campaign contributions, with 87 percent going to Democrats,
according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That is down from
the union’s $6 million-plus efforts in 2000 to elect Al Gore and in
2002 to give Democrats control of Congress. The Teamsters’
contributions also dropped off, from $3,119,140 in 2000, to
$2,544,643 in 2002, and to $2,147,127 in 2004.
The drop-off may be due to a realization that, for unions,
politics just isn’t working. Thus, The Change to Win Coalition — a
group of dissident unions that includes the Teamsters, SEIU, and
five other unions — seeks to shift focus from politics to growing
membership.
Yet does anyone seriously expect any of the dissident unions to
stop politicking for Democrats? And the union split is unlikely to
get employers any reprieve from aggressive union tactics, which, in
some cases, might get worse.
Hoffa and Stern’s claim that Sweeney has neglected organizing
sounds innocuous enough: Unions’ main mission should be to
represent their members and seek to attract new ones, not canvass
for politicians. But the Teamsters’ and SEIU’s tactics are not
intended so much to attract workers but to beat employers into
submission.
FOR SWEENEY, SEIU’S SPLIT from the federation is a major blow, not
only because Sweeney headed SEIU before he took over the AFL-CIO,
but because Sweeney has long championed Stern’s own favored
organizing strategy: corporate campaigns. Corporate campaigns seek
to unionize not employees, but employers, under the threat: Let
us unionize your workforce or we will destroy your
reputation.
Corporate campaigns are multi-faceted political and public
relations campaigns that target a specific employer or group of
employers. Tactics include feeding allegations of company
wrongdoing to the news media, contacting stockholders to deride
management and the company’s financial health, filing complaints
with regulatory agencies, and good old-fashioned picketing.
Adopting and refining a strategy envisioned by the 1960s New Left,
unions enlist allies, including religious and environmental groups,
to carry their message without the taint of the union’s
self-interested motives.
One of SEIU’s most notorious corporate campaigns targeted
Catholic Healthcare West (CHW), the largest non-profit private
hospital system in California, founded in 1986 by the Sisters of
Mercy. Launched in 1997, the campaign culminated in a contract
placing 9,000 employees at 20 hospitals across California under
SEIU representation. Yes, SEIU prevailed against a bunch of
nuns!
How did SEIU do it? Obnoxious, aggressive tactics may be one
reason. This campaign included a series of one- and two-day work
stoppages at CHW hospitals, accompanied by noisy outdoor
demonstrations. Doctors and patients complained about the noise
from picketers, who chanted slogans and beat on drums, and about
the smell of barbecue coming from the picket line.
Then there are the Teamsters’ tactics. On July 25, the same day
the Teamsters left the AFL-CIO, Hoffa announced that the union
would try again to unionize the trucking company Overnite
Corporation, whose employees have resisted unionization in the
past, even in the face of a violent strike that included more than
50 shootings against the company’s trucks or drivers.
Finally, for all of Hoffa’s and Stern’s complaining about
Sweeney’s excessive focus on politics, their goal of membership
expansion is apparently tied to…politics. The Change to Win
Coalition, on its website, states that “we do not believe working people
can win consistently on political issues until many more workers
are in unions.” And just what kind of “winning” do they refer to?
“[W]e note that an in increase in union density in the state of
Ohio, for example, from 16% to 26% would have put John Kerry in the
White House.”
Further, there is little reason to expect the Teamster and SEIU
political spigots to run dry. As early as May 16, 2005, SEIU had
given out $133,000 for the 2006 election cycle, while the Teamsters
had given $168,300, with 88 and 75 percent, respectively, going to
Democrats.
SEIU President Stern says he wants to bring his union into the
21st century. To do that, Stern, Hoffa, and their Coalition to Win
colleagues will need to try a different approach besides bullying
tactics and unswerving loyalty to the Democratic Party.
