Issue link: https://nnumagazine.uberflip.com/i/447674
continued on page 00 strike to protect their patients and their standards, evident in the recent court rul- ing blocking a strike by University of California RNs. ■ An initiative by Schwarzenegger and his allies to bar nurses and other working people from participating in the political process while placing no restraints on the far greater spending by big corporations. It is in this context that our discus- sion about the AFL-CIO takes place. In recent months, CNA members have pro- tested Schwarzenegger and his policies with unions throughout the state, and been joined on picket lines by other union members at many of our hospitals in support of our rights. We must now examine how to strengthen that cooper- ative effort. Most of those unions with whom we have worked belong to the AFL-CIO. Some have left the federation. We have looked very closely at the issues surround- ing the debate that took place within the AFL-CIO at the federation's convention in Chicago July 25–28. THE AFL-CIO DEBATE One group of unions who call themselves the Change to Win Coalition, including the Teamsters, SEIU, UFCW, Laborers, UniteHere, and the Carpenters had ad- vanced conditions (threats) that they said must be met, then they pulled out of the AFL-CIO. One of those demands was that the AFL-CIO force all healthcare unions to be part of SEIU. The majority of AFL-CIO strongly objected to this and primarily because of this, SEIU and a few large unions left the AFL-CIO. This does not mean that they will not be back; in fact many unions over the years have gone in and out of the AFL- CIO. The discussions and debates at our convention with our members should be enjoyable. CNA convention delegates will be debating bylaw changes and issues ranging from patient protections, new forms of healthcare restructuring, health- care reform, and nursing education to national budget priorities, labor law reform, and the effects of the war in Iraq. We wish the unions that left the AFL- CIO had discussed a number of issues, but that did not happen and as such, this was a tremendous wasted opportunity. Rose Ann DeMoro is executive director of the California Nurses Association. SEIU and Teamster-led "Change to Win" coalition could have made a difference in helping to redefine the labor movement. Instead, they pulled out. Here is an exam- ination of what happened and what could have happened. 1 There are no real ideological disputes, in part because the current AFL-CIO leadership and programs were, mostly, put in place by those now challenging them. It appears to be more about egos and an effort by specific unions to anoint themselves as the group who should control the AFL-CIO. 2 No workers or rank-and-file union members are involved, and it is their labor movement. Much of the discussion is based on recommendations of consult- ants and Madison Avenue approaches such as branding, polling and focus groups, and scripted blogs, rather than engaging the membership and the public on helping shape the future of the labor movement. 3 No issues affecting the majority of working Americans are being debat- ed—declining real wages, the health care crisis, the continued erosion of democra- cy in the workplace, outsourcing of jobs across the skill and pay spectrum, a dete- riorating social safety net, declining sup- port for public education, environmental degradation, social justice and ongoing racial and gender inequality, alienation and disaffection from the political process. 4 No real solutions to these problems are being proposed—curbing corporate control of the political and economic sys- tem, single payer-universal healthcare, a progressive tax system that restores fair share taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals, taking corporate money out of politics, a new industrial trade policy, a peace, not war economy, as well as a strat- egy for reforming repressive/crippling labor laws and enforcement bodies. 5 The specific proposals by the Change to Win group are structural and bureaucratic, not programmatic—rebat- ing union dues, forcing unions to merge, limiting the executive council to the largest unions, and claiming sovereignty for unions by industry or sector based on a union's density in that area. There is no evidence any of these changes would solve labor's problems. 6 The notion that the salvation of the labor movement reduces to "density as manifest destiny" is historically false, analytically shallow, and for the unions that are proposing the monopolistic changes, seemingly self serving. Some unions that have achieved density have been decimated by corporate sponsored political, economic, and social policies. Besides, forced mergers are anti-demo- cratic. 7 If the issue of organizing was simply dues rebates we could all rest easy. But that notion is painfully oversimplified. Some unions in and out of the Change to Win unions are organizing within the cur- rent structure, others have not organized for years. Even if the AFL-CIO paid per capita to some of these unions they still would not or could not organize. And forcing mergers is not synonymous with organizing and in fact could silence the voice of the most active and militant unions and union leaders who are funda- mental in building this labor movement. 8 Perhaps because the corporate right is so extreme, some "progressive" ana- lysts have been portraying the dues rebates and proposed forced mergers as core issues. But more troublesome are those pundits who write glowingly about the Change to Win group's greater expan- sion of labor-management partnerships with their corporate-friendly cost savings schemes, worker speed-up programs, explicit endorsement of globalization, deskilling, outsourcing and privatization as labor's salvation. These proposals can only serve to further alienate the American worker from the labor move- ment, further erode labor's power and harm the very society-wide communities with which labor needs to align and nur- ture. 9 Limiting the executive council to the biggest unions would further reduce the influence and voice of women and peo- ple of color in labor leadership. 10 No discussion of non-bureaucrat- ic strategies are on the table— including expanded coalitions with non-labor community, religious, and envi- ronmental groups; active grassroots edu- cation and mobilization campaigns to challenge the corporate/far right agenda; building genuine political independence, holding the Democratic Party accountable to worker and public interests, and seri- ous consideration of—imagine, a labor party for a labor movement. Labor Movement or Labor, Inc.? C A L I F O R N I A N U R S E S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5 9