Is the breakup of the AFL-CIO good or bad for the Democratic Party?

[quaoar]

It is clear that the labor movement has been shrinking over the past few decades and the influence of labor has clearly waned from what it once was? Something has to be done.

But the AFL-CIO was the biggest source of GOTV in 2004 for Democrats. Will the impending breakup change that for the better or make things worse?

Chris Bowers has an interesting analysis at MyDD:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/7/24/183058/120

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. Here's hoping competition makes it better...

...but I'm not that optimistic.

Talk about doing a disservice to your constituency! Showing labor weakness at the height of corporate power is probably the worst thing that can happen to the actual workers. They say the split is because of the decades long slump, but this is outright slitting their own throat. I fail to see the how they can improve things by blowing it up altogether.

[Silverhair]

2. Short term bad, long term good.

Due to the organizational confusion that will result, it will cause problem in the near future for the GOTV. But in the long term it will cause the unions to be more effective, and that will be good.

Much of the old labor unions are mired in the past, and still continue to pursue old goals by old methods and have lost effectiveness because they just aren't in tune with the new world and it's realities. The newer unions will be more in tune with today's world and forward seeing to tomorrow which will enable them to do a better job for their members and to gain new members.

[Bluzmann57]

4. Well, lets hope you're correct

but as a Labor Union member, I am somewhat concerned about this. The Teamsters are sort of a right wing organization, Hoffa endorsed bush in 2000 because he wanted ANWR and the contracts which were(are) sure to follow, hopefully for Teamsters members. Too bad Hoffa, you got taken in. The Union pulling out which really concerns me is the UFCW. They are a big, powerful organization. I am a former member of that Union, so I have some knowledge of them. However, I think that once damage control is done, this split may ultimately be good for workers.
The major reason people give for not joining a Union is,"What did they ever do for me?". I explain about wages, seniority, health insurance, retirement plans, etc. but it doesn't do a lot of good. Maybe the splinter group can figure out a way to make it attractive for people to organize and become Unionized. Here's hoping so.

[kevsand]

6. No union can be "in tune" with today's world

if it's not run by its rank and file. Stern's SEIU is not run by the rank and file any more than the AFL-CIO is ... in fact, in some ways even less. The split will only help in the long run if it motivates the grassroots to finally get involved and throw out both Stern and Sweeney. Since that's probably not going to happen, the split will only hurt.

[Skidmore]

3. I'm less concerned about whether it is good or bad for the Dems

or the AFL-CIO, but more concerned with whether it is good for workers or not. Both organizations don't appear to be concerned with the plight of the worker beyond lip service and convention right now.

[dr.zoidberg]

5. Now see...

Y'know, if the mob were still running the Teamsters this wouldn't be happening. Seriously though, the break up may be good in that it creates competition. It always seemed to me that the AFL-CIO has been way too complacent for a long time.

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. Labor Needs To Make A Comeback

I read that the unions that want to split from the afl-cio are upset at the declining influence and membership of unions. One point they make is that the old guard leadership spends far too much money and time lobbying Congress and not enough resources toward recruiting new members. On the face of it, it seems that the lobbying efforts by unions over the last decade have been a miserable failure. I will admit that I am not overly familiar with the issue, but anything that can help labor reassert some influence is a good thing.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. The problem with Union lobbying efforts

is that they are mimicking the tactics of the corporations, trying to meet them head to head with money, and money is not the unions' strength. Corporations require lobbying because they have relatively few numbers and a lot of capital. The best counter to that, for the unions, is increased union membership so they can say to the candidate, "they have the money, but we have the votes", just as they once did.

It's all fallout from the 50s when the unions were running scared of being tagged 'pro-red' by the McCarthyites. So many union organizers were socialist or communist that the good, patriotic WW2 vets who made up the bulk of the workforce believed the corporatist propaganda that there was something suspect about the unions; if it wasn't the reds, it was the mob. Instead of trying to counter the propaganda, the union leaders worked to purge their ranks of reds, and put their money into lobbying, to stay on an equal footing with the corporations. They let the corporations lay down the rules, and now wonder why they are losing.

If this shakes up the union management, and returns them to their workers' rights roots, it is a good thing.

[Missy M]

8. The labor unions, for the most part, brought about the great...

American middle class. I'm afraid with the unions shrinking the middle class way of life is dwindling. Labor in this country has to make a strong comeback to stop this threat.

[applegrove]

10. They do need to evolve with the times. Separately - they can try

varying policies and campaigns to help workers. I think it is a healty thing to recognize that too big is sometimes stifleling.