A Rank and File Perspective on the New Unity Partnership

By John H. Hovis, General President United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) April 2004

The political, economic and social pressures exerted on
organized labor and working people are massive. The
growing union vs. non-union gap serves to increase
pressures on our respective unions by both employers
and government. Given the circumstances it would be
difficult for anyone in the labor movement to find
fault with the premise that the answer to the myriad of
problems lies in building stronger unions by pursuing a
more aggressive organizing effort. There is reason to
believe that such an effort could be successful with
recent surveys showing that given the opportunity, a
majority of unorganized workers would vote to join a
union. However, count me among the skeptical that the
plan put forward by the New Unity Partnership (NUP), at
least as presently advertised, provides the
organizational features to attract the new members the
NUP is counting on.

The Presidents of the Service Employees (SEIU), Hotel
Workers (HERE), Textile Workers (UNITE), Laborers
(LIUNA) and the disaffiliated Carpenters Union (UBCJA),
should be applauded for their stand to develop a
strategy to move new organization forward. There’s
little question that dramatic action will be required
to achieve any substantial rebuilding of the U.S. labor
movement given today’s difficult economic and
politically reactionary climate.

Under the proper circumstances structural changes
designed to pool organizing resources would be a
necessary, welcome step. However, in and of themselves
structural change and greater resources will not get
the job done. Attracting the number of new members
required to increase union strength at the bargaining
table and in the halls of Congress will require the
type of unity, determination and sacrifice that have
not been seen in this country since the industrial
organization of the 1930’s. Such a massive effort
won’t be accomplished by further splintering an already
ideologically divided labor movement. Egos are big, and
people won’t always agree on the best way to go
forward, but to be successful the more progressive
forces within the AFL-CIO must find a way to work in
unison. Failing to overcome their own internal
differences, the unorganized 90 percent of the U.S.
workforce will likely remain that way. Unions can’t
keep cutting each other up. Perhaps NUP will become a
unifying factor. While I hope that’s true, my concern
is that just the opposite could also happen. From the
outside looking in, the strife within the house of
labor doesn’t look too inviting to those of us in
independent unions, let alone the unorganized.

I can’t boast of an Ivy league education; my
credentials for weighing in on the discussion are my
experiences in the Navy during the Viet Nam War era, as
a local union leader and machinist on the shop floor
and from the people I have worked with on organizing
campaigns, both successful and unsuccessful. My best
teachers are the members I have the privilege to
represent today. I draw my conclusions and lessons from
more than thirty-five years of experience at every
level of union organization from shop steward to
national president. That includes twelve years as an
organizer working from Seattle, Washington to Tampa
Florida and a lot of places in between.

One obvious fault with the strategy being put forward
by the leaders of NUP is the lack of importance they
place on membership involvement in the mass movement
they hope to create and the lack of democratic
principles within the organizations they hope to build.
If democracy is a sound enough method of governance
for our country, it ought to be acceptable for
governing labor unions as well. I’ve never believed
that union members need to be protected from themselves
by their leaders, union professionals or other experts.

Organizing requires substantial financial resources.
Consolidating resources can produce results, if the
money is used in the most effective way. However, NUP
leaders are mistaken if they believe that hiring an
army of staff is the answer. Don’t get me wrong;
professional staff play a very important role in unions
and in new organization. They provide special skills,
leadership and support, but nothing can take the place
of workers relating their personal experiences to each
other. There’s no history of mass organization being
accomplished by outside staff, no matter how skilled
they may be. On the other hand, unions were able to tap
into workers who were self-organized in the 1930’s and
1940’s. Whether we like to admit it or not, unorganized
workers often tend to view paid staff as little more
than salespeople being paid to say what they think
working people want to hear. Rank-and-file workers
historically share a common bond and experience.
Workers relate to each other on a level that can’t be
taught at an organizing institute. To provide the best
scenario for success, the skills of the technician and
the experience of the working member should be combined
to work hand in hand. Hire and train all the organizers
you want, but the people who are the best example of
what union membership can mean must have a leading
role.

Consolidation to bring new efficiencies can be
positive, but not at the cost of democracy. Active
participation by rank-and-file members cannot be taken
for granted. Enthusiastic membership participation and
involvement are achieved through inclusion, not by
excluding people from the decision making process
within their own organizations. Excluding members from
the mega-merger restructuring decisions proposed by NUP
is self defeating. Providing leadership doesn’t mean
throwing off the shackles of democracy for the sake of
greater efficiency. It requires asking what can be done
with and for the members, not how much percapita
members can be forced to pay. It will not be possible
to recruit the number of new members needed to build a
vibrant labor movement without the aid and support of
local union rank-and-file leaders and members. And
organizing will not be successful by offering workers
membership in undemocratic organizations they will have
no voice in. The answer to both involvement and new
organization is empowerment, not alienation.

It is absolutely true that the corporations fight
unionism tooth and nail, but unions also have to
overcome their own negative image. Employers paint
unions as undemocratic organizations headed by greedy,
heavy handed, union leaders with massive egos who
relate better to the boss than to the members they
represent. It’s a graphic image unions have to work
hard to overcome. That’s especially true when
recruiting white male workers. Time has somewhat eroded
the fat cat, cigar smoking image and I suppose that can
be considered progress, but there’s still a long way to
go in promoting the image of labor leaders as devoted
advocates of working people. We have to face the fact
that many members today cannot even cite the name of
the union they belong to, let alone the name of its
international president.

I have always believed that the original ideals of
inclusion and democracy the C.I.O. was built on are the
same ideals a new movement can be built on today. It
isn’t good enough to say we encourage our members to
attend rallies and assist the staff in organizing,
that’s not real democracy. Union members will take
pride in an organization they are a real part of and
will rise to build, defend and protect an organization
they feel ownership of. The NUP analysis fails to take
into account the lack of a mass left wing or
progressive movement in the U.S. The left was a key
element in building the CIO in the 1930’s. Today’s
working class is historically docile by comparison -
including many in the labor movement. The NUP seems to
believe that restructuring the organizational
structures of today’s labor movement is the key to
making progress. One will not necessarily lead to the
other.

I wish the leaders of SEIU, HERE, UNITE, the Laborers
and the Carpenters much success in their efforts in
developing a strategy for mass new organization, we
will all benefit if they prove to be successful. At the
same time I hope they will reassess and revise their
view of alienating current members by running rough
shod over democracy in the process of consolidating and
seeking greater union resources. Resources are an
essential ingredient of any organizing campaign, but
it’s a mistake to forget that the members are a union’s
most valuable asset.

Labor organizations are mass membership organizations,
not corporations. While some corporate behaviors and
techniques are practiced by unions in the normal order
of "businesslike" functioning, much of this agenda is
corrupting at best, and destructive at its worst. In a
vast industrial nation like ours that lacks a truly
expansive labor movement - let alone a mass progressive
or left political movement - it’s no wonder there is a
temptation to apply corporate or corporate-like
solutions to the structural and organizational problems
faced by unions today. The challenge squarely before
the NUP leadership, as well as the rest of us in the
labor movement who honestly give a damn, is to find
ways to move forward, adapt, and hopefully grow without
abandoning the core principles of unionism. It is not
always easy to do when under daily attack by corporate
and government forces, but I applaud the NUP forces for
their desire to stimulate such a discussion. I might as
yet fail to understand or agree with much of their
program, but they and others who wish to seek a
solution to our current crisis are to be encouraged and
recognized for their effort.