Stern-Hoffa Group Loses First Round,
Seeking 50% Rebate for Organizing

For most of the three-day meeting of the AFL-CIO Executive Council on March 1-3 in Las Vegas, there were heated debates, mainly about money: who gets what share of the federation’s annual income, what for and how much.

A proposal by Teamster President James Hoffa to give international unions 50% of the per capita contributions they pay the national AFL-CIO, a rebate of $35 million, was rejected by the Executive Committee by a vote of 15 to 7.

Those voting for the 50% rebate included the four members of the recently disbanded New Union Partnership: Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees, the articulate leader of the group; Bruce Raynor and John Wilhelm, co-heads of Unite Here, and Terence O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers. They were joined by Hoffa, Joe Hanson, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers, and Ron Gettelfinger, president of the Auto Workers.

Opposing the Stern-Hoffa proposal were leaders of communication workers, steel workers, public employees, machinists, teachers, electricians and nine other unions.

Stern and Hoffa said their group represented 40% of the total AFL-CIO membership, and they would continue to fight for their proposal, right up to the federation’s quadrennial convention in late July.

The Executive Committee also approved, by 14 to 8, a proposal by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney to increase the funding for political and legislative activities to a total of $45 million a year.

In demanding a 50% rebate of their per capita payments, the Stern-Hoffa faction offered no analysis of past organizing failures, nor did they indicate any new strategies that could improve labor’s record. In the past two decades, AFL-CIO unions have been unable to organize any of the scores of companies with 15,000 employees or more. Will more money change the picture?

There was almost no discussion about how the national AFL-CIO would be able to operate if it had to return half of its annual income to the international union affiliates, except that activities that did not contribute to union organizing would be eliminated or shrunk.

One heartening feature of the meeting was the agreement that labor’s top priority is to defeat President Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security. Unions pledged to conduct massive mobilizations, using the same tactics that were so effective during the 2004 election. Popularizing the union message will be an important component in the drive to save Social Security. Winning this battle can give a major lift to union organizing efforts.

Decisions about the shape and future direction of the AFL-CIO may not be reached until late July, when the 800 or so elected convention delegates will have the last word. In the meantime, the Executive Council and its subcommittees will hold a series of meetings in an attempt to resolve at least some of the contentious issues.

Andy Stern, as president of the largest and most successful union, has come up with a restructuring plan that is both bold and controversial. He would reduce the 58 international unions to twenty or fewer, with each “mega” union responsible for a specific sector of the economy. The forced merger plan has hardly any support within the labor federation.

Stern’s plan has also been criticized as undemocratic, since it offers no voice for union members, whose pensions and other benefits could be adversely affected. It does not explain what would happen to many unions that refuse to go along with the forced mergers.

Other major unions have submitted proposals for revitalizing the labor movement. The Communications Workers emphasize the need to strengthen labor’s shop steward network and greater union democracy. AFSCME would expand political activities, with year-round member participation. The Machinists want a more effective outreach program, including a national publication that would explain labor’s message to the unorganized. The Teachers want labor to function as a “people’s lobby,” with more attention to broad social issues in the public domain. Unlike the Stern proposal, none of the others call for a radical restructuring of existing unions.

Stern keeps repeating that if he considers any reforms as “cosmetic,” he will take his union out of the AFL-CIO and form his own labor federation. His constant threats and arrogant behavior have angered labor leaders and activists, especially those who resent his dismissive attitude toward union democracy.

Although Stern claims 1.8 million members for the Service Employees, his union made per capita payments to the AFL-CIO in 2004 for only 1,354,000 members, according to the latest AFL-CIO Membership Report.

Thus, if the 1.8 million SEIU figure is correct, the union failed to pay per capita for 446,000 members, short-changing the AFL-CIO by $3,264,720. Or it may be that the SEIU does not have 1.8 million dues payers, as it claims. Stern has an obligation to clear up the discrepancy.

Meanwhile, there’s backroom talk about who will be the next AFL-CIO president. Sweeney wants another four-year term, but there is hardly any enthusiasm for his re-election. Stern’s candidate for the top post is his close associate, John Wilhelm, who is virtually unknown outside of his hotel and restaurant union.

Now that even the bureaucratic leadership realizes that the labor movement is in a profound crisis, union members need — and deserve — a more energetic, articulate and popular AFL-CIO president to lead them. Let us hope that such a candidate emerges in the less than five months before the convention.

Our weekly “LaborTalk” and “World of Labor” columns, pamphlets and other educational materials can be viewed at our Web site www.laboreducator.org. My e-mail address is: hkelber@igc.org.