Hoffa breaking away from labor biz as usual

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 2005-01-20 | Bob Novak

[dread78645]

The barons of the American labor movement gathered Jan. 10 at the AFL-CIO fortress across Lafayette Park from the White House, with doors closed to the public as usual. The AFL-CIO Executive Committee's agenda prepared by President John Sweeney allotted 30 minutes for reform of the labor federation. But James P. Hoffa of the Teamsters insisted much more time was needed to debate badly needed changes.

As Hoffa desired, more than two hours were spent on proposals by him and Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union. They would diminish the influence of the AFL-CIO, returning power to individual unions. Hoffa would cut in half money the unions give to Sweeney, suggesting that his presidency has failed in the basic task of signing up new workers.

No final decisions were made, but Sweeney cannot stand up to the Teamsters and the SEIU -- the federation's two largest unions. Preferring to operate by consensus, Sweeney is unlikely to resist. Decentralization of power would mark labor's most important organizational change since the AFL and the CIO merged in 1955. Whether it ends the movement's long decline, it means Jim Hoffa and Andy Stern will eclipse Sweeney or whoever succeeds him.

A Hoffa-Stern alliance hardly seemed likely last summer when Stern, in an interview with the Washington Post, stunned the labor movement. He said a John Kerry presidency would hurt chances at internal labor reform and expressed doubt that organized labor ''would survive with a Democratic president.'' ''Ridiculous,'' Hoffa responded. Stern promptly asserted support for Kerry but still warned that he would take his huge union out of the AFL-CIO if reforms were not enacted.

The new factor is the entrance of Hoffa as reformer, backed by Stern. No two labor leaders seem less similar. An early supporter of Howard Dean for president in 2004, Stern is on the far left wing of the labor movement. Hoffa is viewed as a political moderate who made a serious bid for alliance with George W. Bush. He drew back when he concluded that the Republicans were unwilling to make policy concessions in return for Teamsters support of oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

What Hoffa and Stern have in common now is dissatisfaction with Sweeney's nine-year tenure running the AFL-CIO, during which union membership continued to decline and now represents just 12.9 percent of the work force. Hoffa is particularly unhappy about the growth of an unproductive AFL-CIO bureaucracy and its duplication of functions performed by individual unions.

Hoffa's arrow, shot directly at the heart of that bureaucracy, is a proposal to ''rebate'' one half of the ''tax'' that the AFL-CIO collects from each union based on its number of members. Those funds would return to the unions, if committed to organizing. In the case of the Teamsters, that would cut in half the $9 million tax. All told, the AFL-CIO receives $90 million annually in such funds.

These and other reform movements will come up for a vote at the AFL-CIO's July convention in Chicago, when Sweeney (at age 71) may seek a fourth term as president. If he does not, his heir normally would be AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka, but he may be derailed by Hoffa ally John Wilhelm of the Hotel Workers.

However, Hoffa has little interest in who runs the AFL-CIO. He wants to march to his own drummer, and that means he is not wholly committed to the Democrats. The Teamsters were an early supporter of Mel Martinez's successful run for the Senate in Florida, one of five Republican Senate candidates backed by Hoffa. But Hoffa's primary concern is organized labor's declining share of American workers.

The rise of Hoffa represents a stunning reversal of power within the labor movement over less than a decade. Hoffa was narrowly defeated for Teamsters president by Ron Carey in a 1996 election that was voided by a federal special adjudicator for fund-raising abuses. Much of the union establishment, including Trumka and Stern, was implicated in the Carey scam. Now Hoffa is a power who threatens to shatter the comfortable life at AFL-CIO headquarters.

[EQAndyBuzz]

And it will continue to decline as unions make greater demands on management and companies, rather than negotiate, take their businesses out of country.

It's time for unions to purge their ranks and change horses. The RATS have once again proven that socialism doesn't work.

[Who dat?]

And it will continue to decline as unions make greater demands on management and companies, rather than negotiate, take their businesses out of country.

I think it has become more of a “human nature thing” more than anything else.

A lot of union jobs (especially in manufacturing and service industries) are rather mundane, repetitive, boring jobs. A lot of them are semi-skilled at best.

Over the years the unions have cultivated an adversarial relationship between their membership and the companies they work for. They’ve been successful (depending how you want to define “success”) because, in general, those members that have been among the more militant/combative have received compensation that exceeds the value of their labor.

Plus, they value occupying space (seniority) over everything else.

Now that’s starting to change. Increasingly, organized labor can’t “wag the dog” anymore. The unions know it, but the membership has gotten used to the swagger and talk and don’t realize how they’re going to get screwed because they simply don’t occupy the position they once did.

Take the last Teamster (Canada) UPS strike just before Christmas. The Teamsters knew they were getting just about the best deal they could ask for (under the circumstances). They had a tentative agreement with UPS pending ratification.

But then the members voted it down (much to the surprise/frustration of certain union officials) and instigated a work stoppage.

Now you’ve got two problems – first the Teamsters had tentatively agreed to something they could not deliver. That doesn’t do much for them being in a position to “represent their members.” Second, because they were involved in disrupting operations, they’ve now got to go out and “sell” a lesser deal than the one that just got voted down.

The “stick” in that case (from what I’ve heard) was that UPS was prepared to cease all ground operations in Canada. Pull out and put them all on the street.

The union managed to get a bigger turnout the second time and ratified a longer, lesser contract.

That’s one problem I’ve noticed – after decades of stirring the pot and creating a surly, sullen, combative membership, they’re surly/sullen/combative all the time - to the Teamster leadership (that theoretically represents them) too, regardless of their recommendations.

I find it somewhat difficult to have much compassion for whatever happens to them (individually or as an organization). But that’s just me.