_{cross-posted at EFCAUpdates.com}

By Bryan O’Keefe

When the Service Employees International Union formally left the AFL-CIO two years ago and formed the Change to Win labor federation, one of the public points of contention was that the labor movement was too focused on politics in general, and electing Democratic politicians in particular.

For example, SEIU President Andy Stern, who was the driving force for the eventual split, wrote on his blog at the time that, “I also agree that the labor movement has been too much of an appendage of the Democratic Party.” He was also quoted as saying, “We can’t just elect Democratic politicians and try to take back the House and take back the Senate and think that’s going to change workers’ lives.”

At the time, Mr. Stern said that John Sweeney’s strategy as AFL-CIO head – which relied heavily on political contributions – was flawed and that in order to revitalize, labor must instead focus on grassroots organizing.

But in evaluating Change to Win two years later, it’s now clear that SEIU and the other Change to Win unions have changed very little when it comes to politics. A recent New York Times story entitled “A Union With Clout Stakes Its Claim on Politics” outlined the pivotal role that Mr. Stern and SEIU is playing in the current Democratic primary. The story notes that in 2008:

Click to read more ...

By Bryan O’Keefe

Two years ago, the major news in labor relations was the split between the AFL-CIO and seven dissident unions, which eventually joined together and formed the “Change to Win” federation. Many labor observers felt that the split was driven by the personalities involved – in particular SEIU President Andy Stern and AFL-CIO President John Sweeney – as much as it was by actual differences in substance. Nevertheless, Change to Win did not tread lightly when it came to formulating their mission statements and goals at their first convention in St. Louis. Speakers talked about massive organizing campaigns, revitalizing the labor movement, and saying good riddance to the old AFL-CIO. (I was lucky enough to be in attendance at that event and still remember that the theme song for the day was “I Can See Clearly Now” which was certainly meant to be a metaphor about the AFL-CIO leadership).

Two years later, all of this raises questions – what has Change to Win actually accomplished? Where does the split stand today? David Moberg has an excellent summary on the state of Change to Win in the liberal magazine “In These Times” this week. The piece is worthy of a full-read.

The biggest problem facing Change to Win is figuring out how to actually translate words into action. Change to Win leaders in 2005 talked a lot about massive new organizing campaigns and Stern even put organizing guru Tom Woodruff in charge of the Change to Win strategic organizing center. But so far, there have not been tangible results. Even if one looks at their website today, all of the major campaigns they have listed – Uniform Justice, Justice at Smithfield, Driving Up Standards, etc. – pre-date Change to Win and were started by individual unions.

Moberg’s article does say that Change to Win is preparing an organizing campaign against CVS and other drugstores. This would actually be a “new campaign” and is worth watching – however, right now, they just simply do not have much to show in terms of results.

What’s more, the organization itself has experienced internal strife. As Moberg points out, there have been spats between UFCW and SEIU over how to best attack Wal-Mart, fights between the service unions and more industrial unions (like the Teamsters) over immigration reform, etc. None of these have exactly threatened the existence of Change to Win, but little fights like these can take their toll, especially when the organization is not having a lot of success in achieving it’s primary goal. Change to Win leaders were known for their criticism of the AFL-CIO and all of its bureaucratic infighting, but their own organization is now suffering from the same shortfalls. Plus too, they complained long and hard about the AFL-CIO’s spending on politics, but Change to Win unions themselves have continued to dump money into the Democratic Party at a frantic pace.

Moberg and the labor leaders he interviews still seem rather bullish about the long-term prospects of Change to Win. And they might in fact be right. It’s also possible that Change to Win leaders are just buying time until Sweeney retires and then the two groups will kiss and make-up relatively soon. The personal rhetorical barbs that Sweeney and Stern exchanged two years ago would preclude a compromise now unless one of them ate crow and there is little chance of that happening. Moberg also leaves open the possibility of reuniting, but not anytime in the near future and the creation of another labor model if the reunification ever happens.

For now, however, it’s clear that Change to Win still has major hurdles to overcome if it truly wants to achieve the type of broad labor agenda it laid out two years ago.

Bryan O'Keefe is a labor policy analyst in Washington, D.C. He is a frequent contributor to EFCA Updates and WorkplaceHorizons.com.

by Bryan O'Keefe

There has been much written in the news lately about the ongoing contract negotiations between GM and the UAW. The latest rounds are critical for the auto manufacturers as they continue to suffer enormous financial losses under the weight of health care and pension obligations.

One creative way to alleviate some of those pressures in the health care arena could come in the form of a VEBA or Voluntary Employee Benefit Association. Basically, the company would make a one-time donation to the fund and then the union would be responsible for managing its investments and paying out the benefit. The VEBA would help the company because it could remove the health care costs from its balance sheet. It would put more power into the union’s hands, but also give them the additional obligation of investing the money wisely.

Click to read more ...

By Bryan O'Keefe

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent story this week on the fate of workers displaced from plant closings in the automotive industry. As it turns out, many of these workers are now turning to the health care field for jobs. One person interviewed for the story said that they were using the money from a buyout to help finance their college education in a medically related field. Others also indicated that they were going back to school for work in health care. The move certainly makes sense for workers – as the baby boomers begin to retire and eventually become senior citizens, there will be a greater demand than ever for health care services. It’s also an ironic one since health care benefits themselves are what has caused many of the financial problems for the Big Three.

While the story did not specifically mention this point, the switch from workers building cars to workers in health care has also been mirrored in labor union membership and influence. At one point, the UAW was the most influential union in America. Now, a persuasive case can be made that the mantle belongs to SEIU, which has a heavy concentration in health care.

Whether labor unions can capitalize on this growth in health care jobs might actually determine if organized labor as a whole makes a membership comeback or not in the future.

Bryan O'Keefe is a labor policy analyst in Washington, D.C.  He is a frequent contributor to EFCA Updates and WorkplaceHorizons.com.