Andy Stern's new book deserves serious discussion and analysis by union members and leaders. I am not thinking about the parts of the book which discuss his personal journey through life and the labor movement or about his broad policy prescriptions for America. I am thinking about the descriptions of and prescriptions for the labor movement and most particularly for SEIU. While it is important to discuss the larger, public policy issues that Andy raises, we are not the only or the dominant voice in deciding those issues. We are, however, the dominant voice concerning the future of SEIU and a major voice concerning the future of the labor movement. This review, therefore, concentrates on the labor union issues.
The descriptions that Andy gives of the state of the labor movement and of SEIU in the past are on the money. If there was a polite way to say that the AFL-CIO needed fundamental change and was incapable of such change just by virtue of its basic structural flaws, then we should have said it politely and moved on. My only caveat about leaving the AFL was that the dispute was carried out in the pages of the New York Times, on 60 Minutes, etc. I don't mean to imply that we could have or should have kept it secret, but only that we should not have hyped the story the way that we did.
The reason for not making out split such a public spectacle is that when all is said and done we still have much more in common with Steelworkers, Auto Workers, and other union folks than we do with any other groups in this society and this should have been emphasized in the book. While our alliances with progressive groups on social or political issues are extremely important to us [and I hope to them] our alliances with unions are based on a shared economic analysis and a common interest as workers in a society that undervalues and exploits workers here and around the world. In other words our solidarity should be natural for and with other union members in a way that is deeper than, for example, with the Sierra Club or even groups like the NAACP. It is a very deep disappointment to many of us that we fail often to measure up to the demands of solidarity, and this is caused in no small part by our own structures and our own failures in leadership. But we should not stop trying for that solidarity and instead substitute a romance with Move-On.org or with other such groups for unity in the labor movement.
These thoughts bring me to the main points in the book that needs discussion and analysis. Andy has identified real problems in our movement: shrinking membership, inability to compete with lower cost labor in the global economy, an unrequited love affair with the Democratic Party, a failure to build active and effective global alliances with other unions, an inability to relate to the needs of the new workforce that is often part time and contingent, a commitment to a system of pensions and health insurance which are employer based and are under constant attack. Like most of us, and most recently the Democratic Party, Andy finds it easier to detail the problems than to offer cogent solutions. But to his credit he does, in fact, prescribe solutions and it is here that he sometimes goes off track.
The main point of Andy's "solution" is that unions should become partners and problem solvers with and for the employers, that we should help employers be more competitive rather than making them less so by driving up the costs of the organized sector and that unions should change their relationship with the members from one that leads to an almost pre-ordained struggle with management to one that provides services for individuals much as the AARP or the AAA do. This theme permeates the book and its practical applications are noted with pride. What is not explained is that the most successful cooperative efforts are the payoff for years of struggle, strikes and other conflicts with employers, conflicts that engaged many members and built strong membership organizations.
The "cooperative" relationship with Kaiser, the New York Hospital League and Catholic Healthcare West came about only after years of strikes, demonstrations, political activism, etc. Strong unions and engaged members can enter into mature, cooperative relationships with employers. In contrast SEIU recently has entered into cooperative relationships on an experimental basis with various nursing home chains and others. These alliances offer the employers the union's political clout to raise reimbursement rates. In return, the employer "allows" the union to organize some facilities. In most cases the contract which will cover the employees (members?) is worked out in advance and denies the employees many of the basic workplace protections and rights that most traditional union contracts provide.
Some of these cooperative arrangements do not come after workers have organized and fought to improve their lives, or even simultaneously with such struggle. They are, without question, institutional peace pacts which establish a straight forward quid pro quo: the union's political help in leveraging public money in return for the employers help in allowing the union to organize employees and collect dues. The possibility of the workers independently engaging in struggle is vigorously discouraged by the terms of the collective bargaining agreements or the underlying cooperation agreements. Unfortunately, some of these "alliances" are highlighted by Andy as examples of a new way of thinking about our role and mission.
Much of the recent history of SEIU is inspiring. For example, there is real genius in the Justice for Janitors strategy of organizing an entire market at one time by getting employers to agree to union standards only when a majority of the employers in the market do so. And wherever this strategy has worked real people; low wage and exploited, have created the public support necessary to force the building owners to acquiesce. Rallies, sit downs, arrests, marches, and even strikes have been necessary and effective. And to his credit Andy Stern has been a leader in these efforts.
Unfortunately, our approaches in other industries often do not involve the members at all until the employer allows us to see limited numbers of them after we deliver the employer some benefit like a Medicaid rate increase or an end to a campaign to highlight patient abuses or other nefarious behavior. And even when we are allowed to organize, unbeknownst to the members, there often is a pattern agreement or "template" in existence which hinders or even makes impossible the growth of a workplace organization that can make decisions for itself. We have to ask ourselves if these methods can produce a real, democratic workers organization or if it is more likely that they will produce a "membership" that is as alienated from the union leadership as it is from the employer. A "membership" that sees itself, correctly, as a third party in a relationship with union brokers and employers – the very antithesis of true rank and file unionism.
There is a real value to impatience with the labor movement, its stagnation and its backwardness. Many of us know the exhilarating feeling that comes with winning an organizing campaign or a strike or a breakthrough contract. If we examine those moments we will find one constant: they all involve lots of members engaged, taking ownership, believing in themselves and each other. Workers in motion to fight for themselves or others believe that they are the union and they act like it. Workers for whom we deliver goodies without struggle treat the union as a third party and are suspicious and removed. A membership organization is built on struggle and in our system some of that struggle is with the employer. I don't think that we can ignore gravity if we study physics and I don't think we can ignore the fundamental laws of our "free market' system when we design our unions. One of those "laws" is that even well intentioned, sainted employers [if there are any] are compelled by the market to drive down the cost of labor in order to compete. Unless there is a countervailing force, competition will force labor costs down. This means that inevitably there will be conflict and that cooperation can only go so far. A mature union must be able to go either way and its' members must be able to judge those situations and make decisions about them in a democratic way.
The need for workers to be able to make the fundamental democratic decisions about their jobs raises the issues of consolidation of unions into ever larger units, be they larger international unions, larger local or regional unions etc. If we are going to be in conflict larger is often better. It allows for more strike funds or political power. It allows for economies of scale which can translate into more organizing or political or campaign efforts, more researchers, lawyers etc. But how do we do this and still have workers make the crucial decisions in their own workplaces or in regional or national bargaining with their employer? How do we make sure there is real democracy in choosing and electing union officials? Andy continues to stress the importance of consolidation into industry-wide unions, larger local unions, regional unions, etc. He does not address the necessity of preserving effective democratic processes and these problems must be addressed if we really believe in the fundamental dignity of union members.
And one other issue raised by Andy as it affects SEIU but not as it affects the broader movement is the issue of corruption. SEIU under Andy has made great strides in rooting out obviously corrupt leaders who were allowed to prosper for many years under past SEIU leadership. But corruption takes many forms and it must be confronted and guarded against constantly. Full transparency of salaries, perks, Trust fund salaries, deferred compensation deals, multiple pensions etc. must be the norm, not the exception. Corruption in its many forms is all too common in our ranks. We often wink at it to get along. But when getting along means access to organizing subsidies or a place on the president's executive board slate or other goodies for officials or their local unions, the temptation to keep quiet and mind your own business may be overwhelming. We need to be aware of these pressures and design ways to counter-balance them.
In conclusion, anyone who takes the time and effort to write and publish a book of ideas deserves a great deal of credit. In this case, credit and thanks because the ideas can and should lead to deeper discussion and understanding and to a bigger, better labor movement. I don't think that Andy means for his ideas and conclusions to be the end of the discussion. He hopes, I am sure, that they encourage discussion and debate. Without a question that discussion and debate should take place at every level of SEIU.
Jerome P. Brown