>Pish Posh- folks are making way too much of this split, in many ways.
>Most union money to the Dems never went via the AFL-CIO, so non-affiliation
>will have relatively little effect.
>
>SEIU et al have said they are quite willing to keep working with local
>Central Labor Councils, which do a lot of the grassroots coordination at
>elections, so as long as that happens, the electoral political effects of
>the split will probably be minor.
You mean the cynics at The Note have it all wrong? And Steven Greenhouse?
Doug
----
New York Times - July 24, 2005
Democrats Concerned by Prospects of a Labor Schism By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
With several of the nation's largest unions threatening to quit the A.F.L.-C.I.O., Democratic leaders say they fear that the possible schism might hurt their party's chances by making labor a less potent political force.
Democratic leaders said a split could hurt their candidates because it could keep unions from coordinating their political efforts as well as they did before and could mean that unions devote less energy to politics and more to fighting among themselves.
"To the extent your allies are fighting among each other, it's not helpful," Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said.
Steve Elmendorf, a deputy campaign manager for Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, said, "It's obvious that it would have a very negative impact on the Democratic Party if the labor movement is in turmoil and fighting with each other."
The A.F.L.-C.I.O., with 13 million union members, has long provided the Democrats with their most effective get-out-the-vote operation. In the 2004 election, households with union members accounted for 24 percent of all votes, and among voters from those households, Mr. Kerry had a 5.8 million majority.
In last year's campaign, unions mailed out more than 30 million pieces of literature and ran 257 phone banks with 2,322 lines in 16 states. Although unions splintered in the primaries behind Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dean and John Edwards, they ultimately rallied behind Mr. Kerry and worked hard for him. Union members voted two-to-one for Mr. Kerry in the general election.
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, an umbrella group comprising 56 unions, coordinated campaign efforts nationwide, and many political leaders said a schism would inevitably undermine such coordination.
"If this split happens, it will obviously disrupt our efforts," said Richard Trumka, the labor federation's secretary-treasurer.
Three of the federation's four biggest unions - the Teamsters, the Service Employees International and the United Food and Commercial Workers - are threatening to quit the federation, as is Unite Here, a union of apparel, hotel and restaurant workers. Together, they represent one-third of the federation's membership.
With the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s quadrennial convention scheduled to begin Monday in Chicago, labor leaders said several unions might announce today that they are going to boycott the convention, a first step toward secession.
Leaders of the Service Employees, the federation's largest union, with 1.8 million members, have said it is fairly certain that their union will disaffiliate, but A.F.L.-C.I.O. leaders are in intense negotiations with them and the other unions to try to dissuade them from quitting.
The dissident union leaders contend that the A.F.L.-C.I.O. has not done enough to reverse labor's slide and is not structured to turn things around. But critics assert that the dissidents are merely trying to create a new power bloc in a political battle with the federation's president, John J. Sweeney.
"A lot of Democrats are justifiably nervous," said Jim Jordan, a Democratic strategist and a former Kerry campaign manager. "Obviously there are potential dangers of a division of resources and manpower. Obviously, the worst case scenario for Democrats is some dynamic caused by the split that decreases labor's activism and financial support, but that seems unlikely."
Some union leaders said the schism could hurt Democrats most at the local level by undercutting the effectiveness of state A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s and central labor councils in dozens of cities.
In some cities and states, the unions threatening to bolt represent nearly 40 percent of the union members. In California, New York and Oregon, for example, the Service Employees is the most politically potent union, and quitting the federation could throw local political efforts into turmoil.
"I think a split can have an effect down below when you get involved with governors and members of state legislative bodies," said Gerald McEntee, chairman of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s political committee and president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "There can be more individual union agendas at that level."
Mr. McEntee and several prominent Democrats voiced optimism that even if several unions quit the federation, unions in both factions were still likely to line up behind Democratic candidates in presidential and Congressional elections.
"American workers vote for the party whose agenda does the most to address their priorities, and that party has been and will continue to be the Democrats," said Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
Some Democrats also expressed concern about the dissidents' assertions that unions have to stop letting the Democrats take them for granted.
"We can't stick just with the Democrats," said Anna Burger, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees and chairwoman of the dissidents' newly formed group, the Change to Win Coalition.
"We need to hold officials, Democrat and Republican, accountable on issues that resonate with working people. We have to stick with candidates and officials, whether Democratic or Republican, who stick with us, and we have to take on elected officials, whether a D or an R, who don't stand with us."
Karen Ackerman, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s political director, said unions had already taken that position by warning that labor might withhold support from Democrats who vote for the Central American Free Trade Agreement.
James P. Hoffa, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, said that the A.F.L.-C.I.O. needed to spend far more of its money on unionizing workers, a move that could make less money available for political operations.
"We lost the election between Kerry and Bush because we didn't have enough members," Mr. Hoffa said. "We delivered the union vote very well, but we just didn't have enough members in the unions."
Mr. Dean said the Democrats would benefit if organized labor unionized more workers. "If they get more people organized, that's more votes for us," he said.
Mr. Dean added that if labor infighting caused unions to cut back on phone banks, for instance, the Democratic Party could redeploy resources to compensate.
Democratic leaders took pains not to take sides in the union battle.
"I can't speak to internal A.F.L.-C.I.O. matters, but I can say that a united front is always better than a divided one," said Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.