The Center for Democratic Unions agrees that there is nothing more important than holding elected officials accountable. The questions to be asked now are:

CAN union members hold their officers accountable?

WHY CAN’T members hold their officers accountable?

WHAT CAN WE ALL DO so that members can hold their officers accountable?

Can union members hold their officers accountable? Even in the best of circumstances members have difficulty holding their officers accountable. By way of illustration, we can look at the situation in ATU Local 587 in Seattle, a union which seemingly provides optimal rights for the membership. Members of Local 587 are protected by the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959. Officers are elected every three years by direct vote of the members. Campaigns are made easier since most members are not geographically dispersed. The officers negotiate the contract. While a ratification vote is not guaranteed in the constitution or bylaws, traditionally there is a vote. On paper, things look good.

So what’s wrong with this picture? The short answer is that the local is still part of a One-Party State government. Clyde Summers, Fordham Professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, described the One-Party State in 1984. The two cornerstones of the One-Party State are, 1. Officer-controlled press, and 2. No opposition parties. As long as officers can censor the press and opposition parties are discouraged, it is impossible for the members to hold their officers accountable.

1. Officer-controlled press. Local 587 controls the content of the 587 News Review. We could ask ourselves, how would the Anti-Vietnam War Movement have gone if President Nixon or Johnson had controlled the only newspaper in the country? Like officers in most local unions, the officers of Local 587 have repeatedly censored news to shield themselves from criticism. For example, UnionFirst, a rank and file caucus of Local 587, recently notified hundreds of operators of their right to back pay for insurance benefits and holiday pay. The union office, which should have secured these benefits years ago, keeps on trying to cover up its negligence. The union newspaper has been silent about the 150 grievances filed.
2. No opposition parties. Like officers in virtually every other international union, ATU international officers face absolutely no opposition at election time. Moreover, local elections have offered next to no competition. Until 1996 Local 587 had an attendance rule which meant there were often not enough members eligible to run for office to ensure at least two candidates per office. Furthermore, local officers keep the shop steward program very weak so that members are not provided with opportunities to develop leadership skills. Both the International ATU and management reward the local officers for keeping the union weak. Without on-going opposition parties, challenges are at best restricted to attacks just before the election by shop stewards and Executive Board officers who have been part of the existing weak system.

What can we all do so that members can hold their officers accountable? Union members need more of the moral and legal authority of the government to help us abolish the One-Party State. The Landrum Griffin Act of 1959 gives union members the right to elect local officers by direct election, and it gave Local 587 the right to abolish the meeting attendance rule. Nevertheless, the Landrum-Griffin Act did not go far enough. Additional legislation is called for.

The Union Members’ Bill of Rights, written in collaboration with Professor Summers, was filed as an initiative to the people in Washington state in 1999. We will refile January 7, 1999. The Union Members’ Bill of Rights requires unions operating in the state to adopt provisions in their constitutions and bylaws which guarantee the right of the members to:

1. Elect officers at all levels by direct election.
2. Organize political parties and to send mailings throughout the year at their own expense.
3. Ratify collective bargaining agreements.
4. Elect their shop stewards.

Union members today do not have the tools they need to hold their officers accountable. The government provides better protections to shareholders in corporations. The Union Members’ Bill of Rights would legitimize opposition parties, it would legitimize networks of communication to circulate competing views. The Union Members’ Bill of Rights will empower the rank and file to build strong democratic unions.

We want to hear what people think about holding officers accountable.

Johnny E. Jackson and Jamie Newman

(Below are portions of the e-mails from Mindy and Carl.)