What does density have to do with the AFL-CIO? Very little and a whole lot at the same time. It has very little to do with the AFL-CIO because it is the affiliates who do the organizing, and it doesn't make much difference who the president of the AFL-CIO is so long as the affiliates are completely autonomous and unaccountable to an organizing program and only a few of the affiliates are actually doing any organizing. This begs the question, I suppose: what should be done to turn this around? And in that respect, the AFL-CIO has a lot to do with the decline in density, because the AFL-CIO's structure is not suited to the massive organizing drives that would be needed to really drive density up.
I don't have the answers to these questions, but it pretty much goes without saying that it would take a whole lot of internal struggle, directed primarily against the sinecures of do-nothing officers in the backward affiliates. And it is by no means clear that all of the "left" in labor would be on board for the changes that would need to happen, given the "small is beautiful" sectarianism on display in a lot of "left" labor writing. Pick up any recent issue of Labor Notes and you'll find out what I'm talking about.
> there's little progress on international solidarity
No, there's tremendous progress in international solidarity. It would have been unthinkable under Kirkland's tenure for the AFL-CIO to have the relationships it does with left-led unions like COSATU, the Brazilian CUT, or the Colombian CUT. The improvements in the AFL-CIO's international programs have not just stopped some of the worst abuses of the AIFLD days, but made real, positive contributions on international solidarity. The Solidarity Center has been sending trade union delegations to meet with embattled union leaders in Colombia, for instance.
Of course, right across the border from Colombia, the AFL-CIO was up to very old tricks in Venezuela. Similarly, they've shied away from building any relationship with the KMU in the Phillippines -- on the grounds that they're close to the Communist Party! This is a little ludicrous, since COSATU is close to the Communist Party as well; I suppose their reticence has to do with the fact that the CPP is currently involved in armed struggle, and they don't want to be close to an organization potentially on the State Department's "terrorist" list.
I have no explanation for these contradictions, because I have little idea how the AFL-CIO's international programs work, who really makes the decisions, etc. I would say, though, that anyone interested in actually changing how they work -- as opposed to complaining in a completely uninformed way from the sidelines -- should strive to find out. If anyone could help me on this, I would much appreciate it.
> and they still don't have much of a political
> strategy beyond giving money to Dems.
Doug, really, you know better than this. Who DOES have a better electoral strategy than this at this point? (Actually, they're doing more than passively giving money. The more cutting-edge political work, led by people like Steve Rosenthal, involves mass voter registration and education of union members on candidates' positions on "our issues." There are many ways to critique this, such as the narrowness of what's conceived of as a "working families issue," but the point is that it's more than just giving money to the party coffers. And it's been effective: for example, Bush would have won Pennsylvania last time but for the union turnout efforts.) Our electoral efforts -- and by my use of the first-person plural, I mean the entire left, not just the left in the labor movement -- are necessarily defensive at this point, because we are weak. There are potential points of entry for progressive electoral efforts, too, but -- surprise! -- they occur where a mobilized black electorate LEADS the struggle, and they occur in Democratic primaries (examples this year include Barack Obama and Cynthia McKinney). For the most part our task is to keep from getting our throats cut. So using support for Democrats as a count against unions (especially when there are a whole lot of LEGITIMATE reasons to critique the labor movement's way of doing things) is a cheap shot -- and furthermore, it's not really believed by anyone outside of retired-cranky-Illinois-English-professor circles.
> Are there some hidden strengths I'm missing?
I think I've mentioned some. There's still a lot more room for improvement, of course.
- - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
People of the US, unite and defeat the Bush regime and all its running dogs!