 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
Here's the Democratic Party response. I don't blame them for being nervous, considering all the goodies they get from labor. The final tally of unions leaving is now 8 comprising about 40% of the AFL-CIO.
quote:
US Democrats speak out against union split
By Dan Roberts in Chicago
Published: July 25 2005 18:38 | Last updated: July 25 2005 18:38
Union leaders and Democrat politicians on Monday warned the US labour movement against tearing itself apart as eight of the largest unions prepared to leave the national federation in its worst power struggle since the 1930s.
Two groups leading the rebellion, the Teamsters and service workers union, were expected to confirm their formal split from the AFL-CIO late on Monday. Other smaller groups, most of whom are already boycotting the AFL-CIO's 50th anniversary convention in Chicago, are expected to follow suit shortly.
Together, the rebels represent some 40 per cent of the AFL-CIO's 13m national members, but they argue that its leadership has failed to prevent a decline in its influence and power.
Instead, they wish to see more money spent on recruiting new members rather than on political lobbying in Washington.
Their split threatens to pitch the union movement into bitter internal battles at a time of growing tension with US business over a range of issues from pensions and healthcare, to outsourcing and trade with China.
Democrat senator Richard Durbin urged the AFL convention to maintain its unity: “There are people in corporate boardrooms who are smiling today, they think we are weakened we are not going to let that happen.”
But a splintered union movement may also pose greater challenges for companies such as General Motors which is desperate to reach a compromise agreement with autoworkers over healthcare. Rebels also plan a renewed push to unionise workers at Wal-Mart, threatening a more aggressive campaign against the retailer in future.
The split also poses severe challenges for the Democratic party, which relies heavily on unions for support and election organizing. “This is a challenging time for the labour movement,” said Democrat senator Barack Obama. “The labour movement must confront the fact that the economy is changing, we must adapt.”
Union leaders echoed the fear on Monday, as efforts to reach a compromise with the rebels appeared to have failed.
“It's far easier to tear down a union movement than to build one,” said John Sweeney, AFL-CIO president. “America's working people cannot afford for unions to declare it's my way or the highway' when workers are under the biggest assault in 80 years.”
Many AFL-CIO leaders regard the split as a power struggle rather than a substantial difference over ideology. “The real issue for these unions is not one of policy or direction, but rather who controls and leads the federation,” added Mr Sweeney.
But rebels denied their split would weaken the movement. Andy Stern, leader of the service sector union SEIU said: “We are not trying to divide the labour movement we are trying to rebuild it. There will be people who question our motives but time will prove us right.”
Anna Burger, chair of the coalition of rebel unions called Change to Win, added: “We have different strategies, but we are not into competition, we are going after the 87 per cent of the workforce that wants a union but does not have one.”
As well as greater budgets for recruiting campaigns, the rebels also wish to see more consolidation among smaller unions. But recent announcements on mergers by the AFL-CIO mean the rhetorical difference between the two groups has shrunk and many commentators regard the battle as more about feuding personalities within the movement. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
flash9286
|
|
The UAW one of the AFL-CIO biggest supporters is acutally growing, after years of steady decline.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Timexwatch
|
 |
Columbia Heights, Washington D.C.
Jul 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
I concour with the commie scum. Union concentrating on union activies and bsusiness rather than being a P.A.C. for the Democ-rats may well revitalize the union sector. |
Being somewhat of a political fundraiser, a switch of money from PAC activities to organizing may be good for the unions, but in the short term it will seriously hurt democrats. Groups like the Laborers, IBEW and UAW are the only groups democrats have that can match the PAC contributions of business and trade association PACs.
Also, the democratic fundraising guys in DC are probably shitting themselves right now. It also doesn't help that Republican fundraisers are beginning to make inroads with labor PACs. Looking at the 2006 cycle numbers, Republicans are netting 25% of building trades and transportation union PAC dollars. Granted, it's early, but over the past few years the percentage of Union PAC dollars going to Republicans have crept up by a few percentage points a year. Getting a few extra percentage points of fifty million dollars a year is still a lot of money.
Moral of the story: Democratic fundraisers are minorly screwed for the next few months. Also, Democrats should not take unions for granted. They're coming to terms that they have to play ball with Republicans, and with that comes a change in political contributions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
Hrmpf.
Livining in a country where labour organisations have had a really serious impact, I don't think that you have any idea of what it can accomplish.
Oh, that is a labour organisation that has been able to both revive itself and adust to current society.
Currently, local labour organisations still are a little backwards because they still fight for exclucive agreements, but hopefully they soon stops this - when this happens, they hopåefully returns to considereing their members concerns and not some obscure political goals that their members doesn't agree with.
I guess that both the french and the american labour organisations could learn a lot from this but I doubt that they will before they are forced to do it by their members.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
Zcribby - that is a pretty good explanation of our organisations - they are forced to leave their political views and change it to what their members want - wich isn't the same.
This should piss both Che and Agathon- though, they probably dont read these theads.
I don't care if they "steal" from each other as long as they protect their members.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlackCat
|
|
Ehrm, no. They may suffer for a short time, but on long terms unioization of WM workers will help them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-07-2005 21:39
It's official. However, CNN coverage this morning said that while they have different goals, they will not oppose nor combat each other in the political "realms"...meaning both with probably support politicians that will help them out.
Ah yes. But can they protect their members while battling off the anti-union attacks from the right wing and simultaneously engaging in an internecine struggle over already-organized workers?
|