Which Side Would You Have Been on in Your Union?

A little local union history. What Side Would You Have Been on in Your Union?

The union local to which I belonged, Afscme Local 444, was a rank and file controlled, historically democratic local. Myself and others, particularly my good friend and brother, Roger Martinez, always fought to keep it that way. I was going through some old union papers and fliers and thought some folks who have spent their lives in union activity at this level, might find this short clip from a statement I put out on a motion that passed interesting. I posted it widely as at this point in time, myself, Cheryl Zuur and Roger had relinquished the leadership of the local (he might have been finishing up his term I can’t remember) and a more conservative group was at the helm; some of them opportunistically looking for a role in management. 

 

The motion that passed would have “prevented anyone on a supervisors list from being on the negotiating committee” as it says below. The leadership wanted to increase the number of attendees that made a quorum so the union could conduct business. They tried to use the argument that too few members came to meetings and that it was more democratic. Really! The motion was in response to this. After it passed, he leadership, or a section of it, resigned. It’s a no brainer in my view and many members saw it as an undemocratic attempt to undermine rank and file power. 

 

I am interested what position other union activists or former or retired activists like myself would have taken or any comments they want to share. Was I right to explain my support this way? Also, some of my co-workers and former members might be interested in this little bit of history. I will cover the names mentioned herein but I really would prefer not to as we took a fair bit of abuse from these folks especially the one who eventually did join management’s ranks. I am grateful for my retirement but damn I miss the union stuff. This was my response to their resignation.

 

Why they resigned

I was not at the meeting where the motion was made that prevented anyone on a supervisors list from being on the negotiating committee. But I would have voted for it had I been there. (my faction took a day off). Does the dues paying member honestly believe that someone who is aggressively pursuing a supervisory position and actually serving in that capacity is a good candidate to fight for their interests at the negotiating table? I do not. 

 

The three officers that resigned are pursuing careers in management and for them to have taken positions as such while they were in the union roles they were is a conflict of interest. This is why the members never saw any literature from the local aggressively confronting management's attacks, our top leaders were pursuing careers that they thought would be adversely affected by such an approach. Psychologically it is also a victory for management because it gives credibility to their argument that union leaders or workers representatives always betray their constituency, always sell out. 

 

Naturally everyone has a right to promote, they just shouldn't use the union as a stepping stone. These brothers also treated the union disrespectfully resigning the way they did. (after they signed their checks of course). I also understand the union member that made the motion received his fair share of abusive e mails from JH and MS. So much for a member's right to express themselves without being humiliated and abused. RL knows about this but chooses to keep it under his hat.

The Quorum

In the almost 25 years that I have been active in the local, attendance has been something everyone wants to improve. We do not live in a totalitarian society, members are not threatened with death if they attend union meetings. As unions go we have been one of the more active. Traditionally not much more than 10% of members attend their meetings. What RL is proposing, sounds super democratic but is in fact a remedy for strengthening the tendency toward bureaucracy in the local and removing the decision making process even further form the membership. This is a trend that has permeated the present leadership.

 

For our local to make any decision under R’s plan, we would need 60 or 70 members at a meeting. It is hard to get that many even for a seemingly non-political issue but one that has dire consequences on people's lives. Only 20 or 25 people decided on the plumber 4 issue though many hate it. So 50 people at a meeting, a good attendance figure, would not be able to make any decision for the local. What happens then? What happens then is that the executive board makes those decisions. So instead of 15, 20, 35 members making decisions form the local, you now have the same regular 13 executive board members. The higher union officials like this as it keeps members away, but it is bad policy; as is the case in many unions across the country, membership meetings disappear and only the "leaders" meet and make decisions. It institutionalizes bureaucracy.

 

Because of space limitations I will add only one more brief comment. RL obviously believes politics has a place in the union movement. He supports the present political position of the labor hierarchy which is to give our money to that ever shrinking liberal wing of the Democratic Party. I agree with R that we should participate in politics, but independently. Throwing our hard earned money at these people, lobbying (bribing) them in Sacramento, has not prevented the defeats that U.S. labor has suffered over the last 25 years. Both RL and RM* see joining the "friends of labor" and getting themselves elected to local office with these "friends" as strengthening the labor movement; I do not, these people aren't our friends and I think history is one my side. Labor should run candidates opposed to and independent of the two corporate parties. **

 

Richard Mellor 9/12/02

**In the organized labor movement there is a tendency of individuals or groups that form in to caucuses with the goal of challenging the present pro-management, business union oriented leadership, to call their caucus or state their main aim to be union democracy. Members for a Democratic Union for example. I formed a caucus in Afscme and we called it Afscme Member for a Stronger Union and we had a platform other than just saying we stood for democracy. There is nothing wrong with fighting for or defending democratic rights and rank and file power in your local union. It’s a safe bet you won’t offend the leadership you want to replace by making “Democracy” the only issue. They support it too. When I used to attend the Afscme national conventions, they were pretty democratic. The problem was the leadership had all the votes. 

What I have found though, is that simply saying your caucus stands for union democracy, TDU is a good example, doesn’t say much. What it does, and often this is intentional for groups like TDU, is avoid raising demands, or issues that will bring them in to conflict with the established bureaucracy. They also fear raising expectations among the membership when they have no program or strategy for winning it. And It is impossible to draw the average worker in to activity on the basis of the need democracy alone. Most local unions to be honest are pretty democratic compared to other institutions in society. We have to have a program, something we are fighting for and a plan for winning it.