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.