Fractured Union

Why should we care about the schism in the AFL-CIO? Well, how’s this for a start?

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.

My first concern upon first hearing about the schism was that it was more of what we’re seeing on the Left in lots of different blocs of voters—the what have you done for me lately? issue, and why wouldn’t it rear its head? The AFL-CIO has become, according to some people, too aligned with the Democratic Party, too focused on elections and not enough on its members. Perhaps that wouldn’t be a problem if the Dems were still truly the party of the people, but the Dems in large part have become as inveterate corporatists as the GOP, with far less attention (and legislation) being given to labor, while corporate gifts like the bankruptcy bill and the slew of hand-outs to Big Pharma get passed with little Dem opposition (and in some cases, *cough* Joe Biden *cough* support). Well, my concern was not unfounded:

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."

There was a time when knowing whether the D or the R candidate would be on the side of labor was a no-brainer. Not anymore.

The Dems really need to get their shit together. They are, by any interpretation, less objectionable than the GOP, but they don’t really do jack shit for progressive causes anymore. Where are they on labor? On gay rights? On endemic poverty? On healthcare? Why are so many Dems willing to compromise on abortion and birth control access issues? Look, I know it’s hard to get things done when you’ve lost the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and (coming soon!) the Supreme Court to the Right, but perhaps the reason everything’s been lost is because of that complacency. Perhaps it’s because the last time a Dem was in the White House, labor got NAFTA-ed, the LGBT community not only got DADT-ed, but also DOMA-ed, the poor got welfare reformed right into a cycle of poverty even more difficult from which to escape, etc.

Some suggest the GOP has gone so far Right at this point, that the Dems are inevitably filling a void in the center that leaves many of their progressive supporters disenfranchised from the party. But if that’s the case, they ought to be winning.

Anyway, I think this labor split is indicative of bigger problems that pervade the Left, and I’m not entirely sure what the solution is, but I know the old “stick with us; we’re not as bad as the other guys” mantra is growing thin.

(Pam’s got some thoughts on the split here, too.)