Democracy and Organizing: from page 1

preceded by years of party-based organizing and shopfloor struggles by workers. These efforts were often independent of both the AFL and CIO, and sometimes went on for years without formal union recognition

The upsurge of the thirties was preceded by decades of independent rank and file activity. Sciacchitano writes that “the ClO didn’t create the movement it came to lead. Rather... it marshaled its massive resources to support and give direction to, instead of trying to control and supplant, the many forces that were already in motion and fighting for workers’ rights.” In looking to the nostalgic past, however, she overlooks the living present. They are here, right now, those union forces preparing for a new advance. The Sweeney AFL-CIO revolution was prepared by decades of insurgent rank and file activity inside our unions. Sweeney did not create the new movement, it created him by making his victory possible.

In our own time, they “were already in motion for workers rights”: the seamen and marine officers who fought for unionism and democracy against corrupt officials; Dow Wilson and

Frank Schonfeld in the Painters union; Ed Sadlowski in the Steelworkers, Jock Yablonski and the Miners for Democracy; the Teamsters for a Democratic Union for over 25 years; symphony players and insurgents in the Musicians; the radicals who revived the American Federation of Teachers; New Direction movements in Auto and Transport; Labor Notes; Association for Union Democracy; Machinists; public and university employees on west and east coasts; Mike Lucas, Charles Delgado and hundreds of electricians in the IBEW....the roll call goes on but we leave it here.

It is they who have laid the groundwork, who have created the air of hope, of democracy, of activity, of militancy, of initiative in the labor movement. If they have gone unknown or poorly recognized, even by our new generation of pro-labor intellectuals, it is because they are not yet enshrined in history; most are viewed warily as dissidents, insurgents, not “team players.”

“What are the corollaries for organizing?” our Dissent author asks. “One is the importance of open communications and decision making—of democracy It is encouraging that this reminder comes, not from some outside nitpicker, but from someone deeply involved in advancing the AFL-CIO cause. But why does it remain so easy to advocate the idea of union democracy but so difficult to carry on the fight for union democracy in the union hall? +

Teamsters election rules: from page 2

Hoffa and/or his allies have retaliated against TDU supporters in the past and will continue to do so in the future, but even if the AUD is mistaken in this regard, thousands of rank and file Teamsters share these fears. Their willingness to risk retaliation by supporting TDU would be chilled to the freezing point if their identities would be disclosed to the Hoffa campaign pursuant to the proposed election rules....

The present leadership of the IBT is anxious to be free of governmental supervision and undoubtedly the Justice Department and the Court are also looking forward to the day when their continued supervisory roles pursuant to the Consent Decree will no longer be necessary. A refusal on the part of the IBT to modif~’ its proposed election rules along the lines suggested in these comments, however, would be a clear indication that that day is still a long way off.

....Implementation of the proposed rules in their present form would cripple, if not destroy, what has been the most important rank and file reform movement in the history of American labor. There is much to suggest that the proposed rules were crafted in their present form with the deliberate intent of destroying that rank and file movement, and with it, any prospect for organized and effective dissent within the IBT. If that is the case, there can be no stronger evidence of the need for ongoing governmental supervision of the IBT’s internal affairs--beginning with the rejection of these rules by the Justice Department and the Labor Department. If, on the other hand, the IBT’s current leadership is not intent on destroying the rank and file movement within their union, their best way of demonstrating that would be to voluntarily change the provisions in the proposed rules that would inevitably have that effect. +

“Empowerment” in the SEIU within limits

In reporting on the campaign for a fair contract for 40,000 employees of Los Angeles County, the SEIU publication writes, ‘Nearly four years ago, Local 660’s leadership recognized that activist stewards were vital to the union’s success. So they took steps to empower stewards by giving them more responsibility on the job.” That’s on the one hand.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, stewards and activists in another, even larger, SEIU local suffer quite a different fate. We refer to the California State Employees Association, SEIU Local 1000 which represents some 100,000 public employees statewide.

In 1992, stewards and other activists in the CSEA Civil Service Division, uempowered~ members by forming a reform caucus: the Caucus for a Democratic Union. The Division represents close to 50,000 members, just about half of the whole statewide union, but it is gerrymandered out of full representation on state bodies. The caucus fought for a more democratic setup, and for more vigorous representation in grievances and in contract negotiations. In 1996, the caucus convinced the membership and won a majority in the Civil Service Division. Since 1996, and even before, the new leaders of the Civil Service Division have been hounded by the state officers who have filed a goulash of charges against them year after year. Each time, the Division leaders have successfully fought off the charges, usually before the state’s Public Employment Relations Board.

But just as nominations were opened for new statewide elections, posing the possibility that the reformers might win control of the whole statewide union, the old state officials, precariously still in power, suspended all top officers of the Civil Service Division, on fabricated charges of dual union ism.

The SEIU must make up its mind: Does it ‘empower” or suppress those ‘activists” who take ‘responsibility” for fighting for decent and democratic unionism?

June 2000

12

Union Democracy Review