Disorganised labour

Jul 26th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda

America’s trade-union movement has suffered its biggest split in 50 years, with a big group of unions breaking away from the AFL-CIO. The breakaway group wants more money spent on recruiting members rather than lobbying politicians. It may be bad news for the Democrats but the disunity in the ranks of organised labour will not necessarily be good for big business

IN THE long history of the struggle between capital and labour, one of the principal weapons wielded by the latter is solidarity. After all, workers of the world that unite have nothing to lose but their chains. So it is perhaps surprising that in America, where capitalism is reddest in tooth and claw, that the workers should have concluded that the best way to offset the power of the bosses is through schism.

Four of America’s biggest unions have boycotted the annual conference of their federation, the AFL-CIO, which opened on Monday July 25th. Festivities planned to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the merger of the American Federation of Labour and the Congress of Industrial Organisations to form the AFL-CIO—which ended American unionism's last great split—may now prove somewhat muted.

Two of the largest unions, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which boast 3.1m members between them, have already said they are quitting the federation altogether—and others may soon follow. Besides these two, five other unions have aligned themselves with the breakaway “Change to Win” coalition: Laborers’ International of North America; UNITE HERE (representing textiles and hotel workers); the United Food and Commercial Workers International; and the United Farm Workers. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners splintered from the federation four years ago. The departure of the seven unions’ combined membership of 6m would leave a big hole in the AFL-CIO, which currently represents 13m American workers.

The defection would also have financial implications for America’s trade-union body. The SEIU and the Teamsters together contribute around $20m a year in dues out of the federation’s total budget of $125m. The reasons for their departure centre on how this money is spent. Already the AFL-CIO spends $44m a year on political lobbying and its boss, John Sweeney, has proposed raising this to $60m. He has also proposed doubling, to $22.5m, the budget for “organising” (ie, recruiting new members). But the rebels, led by Andy Stern, the SEIU’s boss, want a big chunk of the budget returned to individual unions, for them to spend on boosting their membership.

The union movement has long been in decline. The number of union members in American workplaces has fallen by 800,000, to 13m, since Mr Sweeney took the helm of the AFL-CIO in 1995 (perhaps he deserves some sort of executive bonus for this?). The proportion of unionised workers in private firms has slipped below 8%, its lowest since the 1920s. In the total labour force, only 12.5% of workers are in a union, down from about a third in the 1950s . Mr Stern believes that resources should be redirected at reversing this situation. And as well as a more general membership drive, the “Change to Win” coalition is particularly disappointed that the AFL-CIO is not spending more to target companies that they perceive to be particularly resistant to union activity, such as Wal-Mart.

It is not clear that an injection of funding will be enough to reverse the erosion of union power and membership. Along with the outsourcing of manufacturing, traditionally a fertile ground for union recruitment, the expansion of the part-time workforce has hampered union activity, as this sort of employee is harder to organise. Although in some states workers are obliged to join a union if a majority of workers choose to have one, many southern and western states have laws that allow workers to opt out. And companies are now more savvy when it comes to blocking union activity by, for example, not hiring known or potential activists. More generally, while pay inequalities have widened, America’s strong economic growth in recent decades has meant that many workers have seen improvements to their pay and conditions, sapping their will to join battle against their capitalist exploiters.

Though the split may in part be driven by personality clashes and power struggles among the union barons, to some degree it makes sense for the labour movement to divide and pursue two contrasting strategies. Many of the unions that are sticking with the AFL-CIO represent manufacturing workers, who feel threatened by free trade and thus want their unions to lobby for protectionism on Capitol Hill. Others represent public-sector employees, for whom political muscle is also important: the election victories of Republican governors in Missouri and Indiana last year led to the scrapping of collective-bargaining deals in both states. The breakaway unions operate predominantly in private, service-sector firms, whose priority is gaining members, and thereby recognition, in growing, non-union firms, as opposed to political campaigning.

A split in unionism could be bad news for the Democratic Party. The AFL-CIO is practically a branch of the party, endorsing Democratic candidates in elections and providing them with swarms of campaign workers, while mobilising support to fight legislation that has particular resonance with union members, such as President George Bush’s plans to reform Social Security. In future, the Democrats may no longer be able to take union support for granted. Both Mr Stern and James Hoffa, the Teamsters’ leader, have promised there will be no less support for Democratic candidates. But actions speak louder than words and, last year, Mr Stern put $570,000 of SEIU money in to the campaign of Patrick Ballantine, the (unsuccessful) Republican candidate for governor of North Carolina, who promised to increase state workers’ pay.

Without a strong union base, the Democrats risk looking like little more than a collection of special-interest groups, including blacks, gays and abortion-rights supporters. On the other hand, it may force the Democrats to rebuild their own grassroots organisation—if so, this would make the Democrats less beholden to the unions and thus less obliged to support policies (eg, protectionist ones) that may benefit some union members but are bad for America as a whole.

A new union movement that is less dogmatically tied to the Democrats may have a wider appeal to new members. Around a third of the 13m members of the AFL-CIO voted for Mr Bush in the 2004 presidential election and probably resent that their dues are spent supporting Democratic causes. Workers, if they now start being wooed by two rival union camps, may discover the benefits of competition, as the two sides try harder to justify the union dues they charge.

However, while a split in the labour movement may seem like good news for employers, it may not turn out thus. The rivalry between the two camps could easily manifest itself in a competition to outdo each other in militancy. And conflict between unions may make it harder for ailing, unionised firms, such as car makers and airlines, to get them all to agree cuts in wages and other benefits, to save the firms from collapse. Even the bosses of non-unionised firms might begin to feel the heat if the rebel Change to Win group succeeds in its strategy of concentrating its resources on recruiting new members. After all, doggedly recruiting at the factory gates is how the union movement got to be powerful in the first place.

Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.