Excerpted From The Debates in Labor: Danger or Historic Opportunity

The Debate

The election of John Sweeney, Linda Chavez-Thompson and Rich Trumka to head the AFL-CIO in 1995 marked an important turning point for US labor. In many ways it was the rejection of past class collaborationist policies beaten into the labor movement by big business in the Red-Scare days of McCarthyism. It was a critical first step in rejection of business unionism. It was the culmination of a struggle inside Labor to change direction. But it was hardly the end of the discussion.

Perhaps the most important change of the Sweeney, Chavez-Thompson, Trumka election was to open the doors in labor for a much bigger debate on direction. And it has not been an Ivory Tower debate. In the last few years we can point to the excellent work of the People's Weekly World. Many union activists see the paper as indispensable for their work. We have labor coverage like no other and we link all aspects of the class struggle and the people's struggles to labor.

Though we have fewer trade union comrades than we did just ten years ago, those we have are much more deeply embedded in the work of their unions, many in leadership positions. And we as the Party and YCL have been in the thick of struggles, side by side with unions: anti-(capitalist) globalization and trade issues, strike support and solidarity movements, student labor activism, labor peace initiatives, immigrants rights, organizing the unorganized, labor legislation issues, just to name some key areas.

Our new standing means that activists, left and center, in labor want to know what we think.

I think that this may be the opportunity of a lifetime to participate in a historic discussion about the basic program and future of labor. A bunch of things are coming together in a unique way:

Labor is at a crossroads and must change and adapt to the new situation. Capitalist globalization is reshaping world production and economic patterns in ways that threaten the living standards of all workers, everywhere. Ultra-right political control of all three branches of the US government mean stepped up attacks on workers, their unions, their communities, and their families. US Imperialist aggression and domination in the world aggravate the points above and threaten the very lives and future livelihood of working class youth. The decline in union membership, especially in the vital private and manufacturing sectors, have critically weakened labor's political and economic clout.

Our principles

But how we engage in the discussion and debate is most important. While it is way beyond the scope of this report to get into all the programmatic issues being debated, I do want to raise what I think are some points of principle about our contribution.

Number one is that working class unity and trade union unity are bedrock principles for us. No way can we support any proposals that split or divide the labor movement. Especially now, it the face of four more years of an ultra-right administration bent on destroying labor, any dividing or weakening of labor unity would be the height of self-defeating folly. Threats to leave serve no one but labor's enemies. And the changes that need to be made cannot be 'hot-housed' or rammed through.

Comparing this period to the period when the CIO was formed is superficial at best, and delusional at worst. Just for starters, when the CIO was formed, the government was not dominated by ultra-right, anti-union zealots out to destroy labor. Instead the Wagner act was passed, finally recognizing labor's right to organize. FDR used his bully pulpit to proclaim that if he were a worker he would join a union. And while the CIO had some of the most committed and forward looking labor leaders, it was based on mass organizing committees like Steel Workers Organizing Committee (SWOC) made up of thousands of rank and file activists in the key shops.

This point about unity is so critical that I think we have to explore concrete steps to fight for unity in the heat of this debate. One idea is 'unity and change' resolutions from local and national unions, allied and related organizations and even groups of rank and file workers who reject any splits and call for unity building measures and common struggle for change.

One last point on unity. Working class unity is first and foremost about multiracial, multinational unity. Black, Brown and white unity is not just about diversity and representation. It is about fighting racism and for equality. To unite all of labor requires an affirmative program and action for equality on all fronts.

Number two is that labor does have to change to meet the challenges ahead. No one seriously disputes this idea. But what is missing in much of the discussion is a fundamental answer to the question, 'What are the challenges ahead for labor.' Much of the debate seems to center on structural or organizational changes. Well and good, but not all the problems facing labor are internal. Changes also have to flow from a vision of where labor is going and what kind of fight it's up against a bit down the road.

Take for example all the struggles around health care. Unions are constantly losing ground in their individual battles and contract struggles on this issue. As the Autoworkers put it in their last negotiations with the Big Three car makers, there are no solutions to the health care crisis company by company and union by union. Solving this crisis for workers requires a confrontation with the medical and insurance companies and the medical establishment and a head on legislative fight for a comprehensive national health care system that covers all.

Number three is closely related to number two. Only class struggle trade unionism will win for the working class in the end. Or to put it another way - where is the class struggle in this debate? Efficiency, and organization, and leverage are important considerations to be sure, but so are militancy, solidarity, coalition building and winning advances. After all workers don't join unions to take pay cuts, and lose healthcare and pensions. With all the money in the world spent on organizing, unions can't attract new members if we can't show a way to win concessions from capital and the corporations. 'Go along, to get along,' strategy won't get the job done.

Besides merging unions and increasing accountability we have to talk about a whole range of issues. A couple quick examples: We need national contracts with common expiration dates in industries and sectors. We need to rebuild the shop steward system in the workplace in a way that goes way beyond 'legal' policing of the contracts, to mass mobilization in the workplace to win grievances and stop company abuses. We need to return the union 'center of gravity' to the rank and file in the workplace. We need to strengthen union democracy and diversity at all levels.

Class struggle trade unionism also means working class internationalism. It means increasing contact and alliances with unions and workers around the world. It means fighting government policies that promote transnational capital's globalization goals. It also means opposing military adventures like Iraq. Not only do our member and workers get killed for no good reason, but vast resources get wasted. How can we win the battle for healthcare, social security, pensions etc while wasting billions overseas in hot and cold military action that only serves the interests of companies like Halliburton?

And principle number four is that this debate and discussion has to become the property of the rank and file. It is also a practical question. The only change that really matters and really transforms things is change that is embraced by the vast majority of trade union members. Getting this debate into the workplaces, union halls and central labor councils is central to any real change.

Some Cautions

Already there is a tendency to demonize those you disagree with in this debate. That won't get us anywhere and besides it is unfair in the house of labor. We should not question the motives of labor leaders who are frustrated and anxious for change. Andy Stern, and the SEIU have come in for some bashing. I don't agree with that approach. Disagree on issues and methods, but also recognize the outstanding contributions individual unions have made to labor. Look at the many innovative and winning organizing drives SEIU has built, look at their commitment to defeating Bush. Look at the labor community coalitions of UNITE-HERE, their initiating role in the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride. And agree or not with specific proposals, these unions have helped foster what could be a historical debate in labor.

I also think we have to avoid 'slicing and dicing' the labor movement. Some say it's a struggle between the public unions and the industrial unions. Some say it's just a power struggle at the top between the young hotheads and the current leadership. Some want to characterize it as a struggle between left and right, or ultra left versus the center forces. I don't see any light in such characterizations. Let's deal with the substance of the issues being raised, not get caught up in speculation and 'intrigue.'

Last caution. It's very good and important that everyone feels a sense of urgency for change. The corporate attacks and four more years of a dangerous anti-labor administration should drive us all to seek solutions. But obviously the answers are not simple. The problems labor faces did not develop just yesterday. I think we have to be the voice of patience and measured response. We have to base our approach on confidence in the rank and file union membership.

In Conclusion

I think we have to enter into these discussions with an open mind and great anticipation for important developments ahead for labor. We have a lot to contribute. I recently re-read some of the Party Labor programs. Rereading the 'Fresh Winds' program and the updating that we did at our last convention in 2000, I think we are in a unique position to be helpful and constructive.

The debate is happening and will continue to happen. It is necessity and it is natural historical development. We have to be in the thick of it and we have to 'stand in our place.'