Can Labor Regain Its Former Strength
By Adopting New Political Strategies?
By Harry Kelber
(Sixth in a series of six articles)
In the 2004 presidential elections, our unions spent a total of at least 200 million dollars, and what did we get for it? Nothing. Well, you can say we gambled and backed the loser.
But let’s go back to the 1992 election, when the Democrats, with labor’s solid support, won both houses of Congress and Bill Clinton occupied the White House. What did we get for the tens of millions of dollars and the army of volunteers we contributed to the Democratic Party victory? Nothing.
We couldn’t get them to use their control of Congress to pass a law to give workers the right to join a union without facing harassment or discharge. Worse still, the Clinton administration sponsored the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA), despite the bitter opposition of the AFL-CIO and ignoring the evidence that our workers would lose thousands of good-paying jobs because of this legislation.
The Democrats figure we can swallow any injustice or humiliation because we’re in their pocket. They’ve convinced us that we have no practical alternative. We certainly are not going to switch our allegiance to the Republican Party, the political arm of Big Business and the nesting grounds of right-wing organizations. We are caught in a political mousetrap, but the AFL-CIO leadership has offered no way of getting out of it.
Union Members Are Unhappy About Labor’s Political Failures
It’s easy to understand why a growing number of union members are asking why are we spending millions of dollars of their dues money on political elections, when we’re not getting anything in return. Many are saying we shouldn’t give a cent to either political party because they’re both doing the bidding of multinational corporations. The savings, they say, should be used to lower our dues payments or increase the funding of organizing campaigns. Still others argue for building a Labor Party.
The AFL-CIO is correct in emphasizing the importance of participating in national, state and local politics. Republicans and conservative Democrats would love to have labor get out of politics, so there would be no opposition to their takeover of our government. There are many things that working families need that we’re not going to get through union organizing and collective bargaining: from national security, drug protection and fairer tax laws to affordable housing, better schools and child care centers.
But if we have to play the political game, why can’t we be winners — at least some of the time?
* * * * *
At the AFL-CIO’s 2005 convention, John Sweeney, newly-elected to another four-year term as president, revived an old, unfulfilled pledge that the federation would engage in year-‘round political activity, and that it would spend $45 million of its budget in “historic” campaigns to win elections and pro-worker legislation.
Why Is Labor Still Silent About Preparing for 2006 Elections?
Yet five months have passed and there is no visible sign that any political activity is going on within the labor movement, except for exhortations to keep on sending e-mails to Washington in support of the Employee Free Choice Act. The silence at AFL-CIO headquarters is particularly alarming, since there are fewer than 11 months left before the critical 2006 congressional elections.
The Change-to-Win coalition is downplaying electoral politics in favor of recruiting non-union workers, which, it claims, is the only way to rebuild the labor movement. It is uncertain whether the CTW unions will join the AFL-CIO in a united electoral campaign as they did in 2004.
We probably won’t know anything about the AFL-CIO’s plans for the 2006 elections, until there is a meeting of its General Board, which consists almost entirely of international union presidents. No meeting of the Board has been announced.
If there is a replay of labor’s 2004 campaign, the AFL-CIO will sharply criticize President Bush on domestic issues, but remain officially silent on Bush’s conduct of the war in Iraq, ignoring the fact that 125 of its national, state and local affiliates have joined U.S. Labor Against War (USLAW) in calling for an end to the American occupation and the return home of our soldiers.
Sweeney will probably be as subservient to Democratic Party bigwigs in the choice of issues, candidates and conduct of the campaign as he was in the 2004 presidential contest, when he, as labor’s principle spokesperson, remained largely invisible.
We Have Enormous Political Bargaining Power
Why won’t AFL-CIO leaders engage in political bargaining with the Democrats? The Dems must know that their candidates have little chance of getting elected without the money, volunteers and get-out-the-vote crews of the labor movement. We have tremendous political power, but we must demonstrate the courage and savvy to use it. We should demand a price for our support from every candidate — whether Democratic, Republican or Independent. And we should continue to build community alliances to strengthen our political power.
In the congressional and statewide elections, we should let members of local unions, central labor councils and state federations decide on the choice of issues and candidates, as they see it from their perspective. Our election strategy must be based on grass-roots participation, not on edicts emanating from AFL-CIO’s General Board.
To ensure broad participation by the rank-and-file, we should encourage the formation of Worker Political Clubs that would function throughout the year — before, during and after elections. Membership in these clubs should consist not only of union people, but also their interested relatives and friends and non-union workers. They would have plenty to do: publicize their views; visit incumbent lawmakers in their home district offices; develop in-depth knowledge about key legislative issues; invite prospective candidates to express their views; publish campaign literature; raise money, and prepare for election day. A network of thousands of such clubs could carry a lot of political clout.
Let¹s face it: we’re never going to get a fair shake under the present two-party system. While there may be differences between the Republican and Democratic parties, Big Business has the money, power and pervasive influence in government circles to make both parties kow-tow to their wishes. Haven’t we had enough evidence to convince us of that truth?
There Are Lots More of Us Than Them
But keep in mind that for every top corporate executive or right-wing extremist, there probably are many thousands of workers who will cast their ballots at election time. So why don’t we win? Because corporate-minded lawmakers and the business-controlled media are able to confuse, misinform and divide us, even making some of us vote against their own best interests.
If we are to win elections, the political education of our members must have high priority in our campaign strategy. (Neither the AFL-CIO nor the CTW have education departments to take on this important assignment.)
If organized labor hopes to achieve significant gains for America’s working families, it will have to act as an independent political force in relation to both major parties. Eventually, it will have to do what unions in most countries found they had to do: establish a Labor Party. In time, that would be a significant legacy to hand working people of the future.
This is the last of six articles on “Does Labor Have a Future?”
For past articles, visit our Web site: www.laboreducator.org.
Harry Kelber’s e-mail address is: hkelber@igc.org
| Home | Publications | LaborTalk | Contact us |