Part Seven:
Revitalize the Spirit of Solidarity that Drove the Initial Merger of the AFL and CIO
In a fractious and litigious society, it is easy to fall into the trap of us versus them, even when the “them” is really “us.” What drove Walter Reuther, George Meany, Al Hayes and others to merge was a clear understanding that the forces arrayed against organized labor were growing stronger by acting in concert, overtly and covertly.
But with 143 autonomous national and international unions, each with its own unique history, culture, local politics and agendas, the founders of the AFL-CIO also knew that the spirit of solidarity would ebb over time. So, they sought to institutionalize within the House of Labor mechanisms that could resolve disputes between affiliates and between the AFL-CIO and its affiliates. Those dispute resolution mechanisms were not based on trust, but on transparency and absolute impartiality.
After fifty years, a complete reevaluation and revamping of how disputes are resolved is needed. And we must start with what seems to be the most contentious issue in the current debate – the budget and program priorities of the AFL-CIO itself.
a. Affiliates need much more specific information regarding the AFL-CIO’s overall budget as well as detailed budget (financing) for all of the federation’s various activities, past, present, and anticipated. The lack of transparency that currently exists at the AFL-CIO is one of the contributing factors to misunderstandings and confusion within the labor movement.
b. While detailed budgets and program work plans are developed by the AFL-CIO, the lack of prior consultation with the affiliates at the staff level means that the key decision makers, the AFL-CIO’s Executive Council, are handed a fait accompli.
c. Each department at the AFL-CIO should convene a working group of affiliate staff to review the structure, budget, and objectives of the AFL-CIO’s departments. Such departmental working groups would also meet on an annual basis to help formulate activities, priorities and objectives for the coming year. Their work product would be reported to, and reviewed by, the Executive Council for discussion, direction and approval.
While greater transparency in the formation of the AFL-CIO’s programs and initiatives is needed, the jurisdictional dispute mechanisms, both Article XX and XXI, are broken beyond repair.
The Article XX procedure is now dominated by attorneys and, as a result, is more contentious and convoluted than ever. The mediation process is nothing more than a complaint session. And all parties want to go to the arbitration step, even when they are clearly wrong.
a. The AFL-CIO needs to revamp the Article XX process to emphasize settlements in the mediation stage. The process should be driven by a realization that the more we fight each other, the less employers have to expend in time and funds.
b. Given the vast numbers of unorganized workers – over 125 million by last count – the Article XXI process should be geared to reaching a speedy, final conclusion of disputes. Rather than focusing on debatable indicia of organizational activity, perhaps the process should be driven by the earliest date of any activity. And, rather than reflecting which union has the most political clout within the AFL-CIO at any given moment, jurisdictional determinations should be made in an absolutely impartial manner based on the facts presented.
c. Neither of the current AFL-CIO internal dispute resolution mechanisms have any teeth. That must change. A panel of permanent mediators/arbitrators should not only determine the appropriate union jurisdiction, as they currently do, but should have the authority to assess damages equal to half of the dues collected by the offending organization. An independent team of researchers should be available to the mediator/arbitrator to determine damages and to try to fashion settlements of disputes.