Breaking Away [Updated]

The break within organized labor is just about official. On Sunday afternoon, press reports said that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Teamsters would – on Monday—announce their official departure from the AFL-CIO.

[UPDATE: the break is now official].

Two other dissident unions, the Hotel Workers and the Food Workers may immediately follow suit. These four unions have already decided to boycott the AFL convention which formally opens on Monday.

The showdown, which has been brewing for months, now seems to be coming to a head. In my world, this is Big News.

I am among those who are encouraged by and who fully support the break. It’s not only because my wunderdaughter is on the SEIU team. But also because it is now or never for American labor. The dissidents argue, and I agree, that a new labor movement must be more consolidated, more powerful, more focused, more committed to organizing and less a political satellite of the Democratic Party.

SEIU President Andy Stern, who is leading the split has taken plenty of heat from baying "progressives" who now seem absolutely terrified of change. For two decades they have moaned about the need to shake up the Democrats and jump-start Labor; but now when the largest and most successful union in America decides to do exactly that, these same liberals start to whine about “unity.”

Please.

What Stern proposes  as an alternative may or may not be the right prescription. What we do know is that the current course of the AFL-CIO is not tenable. It’s stagnant, stalled and mostly a piggy bank for Democrats, many of whom don’t give a damn about labor.

On that note… let me refer you to the posting immediate below this which details some weekend masturbating by thousands of Democrat activists. On the same weekend they are meeting in 350 nationwide prayer circles reading each other excerpts from the Downing Street Memos and chanting “Impeach Bush,” the American labor movement is (choose one) a) being reborn b) ripping itself apart or c) engaging in its most important debate in 50 years.

Every single Democrat activist ought to passionately subscribe to one of the above views. Because any Democrat with an IQ above room temperature ought to know that without a rejuvenated labor movement there will be no significant political change in America.

So can you imagine…?  instead of wanking over the Downing Street Memos if these same Democrats had come together in 350 national meetings to discuss what the hell is going on in the labor movement this same weekend and what they should and could do about it?

Oh… you say you can’t imagine such a thing? No kidding. The sad truth is that there are damn few links between organized labor and liberal activism. Most of those huddled Democrats wouldn’t know what to think about organized American workers because they have no real connection to them in any case.

It means that both the Democrats and Big Labor need to undertake some serious changes. At least a portion of the latter – the unionists willing to break with the AFL-CIO – have taken a first step.

(oodles of links on the break)

P.S. Five years ago I wrote a cover story for The Nation magazine on the new Teamsters regime of Jimmy Hoffa Jr.  I took a lot of heat over it from knee-jerk lefties who didn't want to know any facts and only wanted to demonize Hoffa. Little could they have guessed that five years later Hoffa would wind up allying with what it essentially the labor "left." History can sure be a bitch.

Comments

[Jay Byrd]

> Jay Byrd: "It is widely felt among rank and file Dem activists -- the sorts of people who hire baby sitters so they can come to Democracy for America meetups, or just bring their kids -- that Hillary in '08 would be a disaster."

> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-dlc26jul26,0,1878987.story?coll=la-home-headlines -It's not often you get to be proven wrong so quickly.

Huh? I was referring to Dem activists -- the kind of folks who attend meetups, the kind of folks who DESPISE THE DLC. So how exactly does the DLC picking Hillary prove me wrong? Perhaps you make the same mistake as Marc and fail to make any distinctions among "the Democrats".

[Jay Byrd]

Mavis, if you're still around, take a look at this: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/26/269/35286

Please remember that I was talking about Democratic *activists*, the kind of people who hire babysitters to go to meetups or bring their kids because they can't afford one, stuff envelopes, walk precincts during elections, stuff like that, not the multimillionaire "moderates" who run the DLC. I understand that you and Marc don't have the faintest idea who these people are, but that's a good reason to try to find out.

[Mavis Beacon]

I accept your distinction. So Daily Kos doesn't like the DLC. Neither do I. What else is new? That post has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. You've built yourself a premise that is difficult to argue with. Let's just wait and see if Hillary gains traction. If she does, it shows the true impotence of "Democratic Activists" and suggests they should get themselves a new political party (either that or you were wrong about the monolithic distrust of Hillary Clinton).

[Jay Byrd]

"So Daily Kos doesn't like the DLC. Neither do I. What else is new? That post has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. You've built yourself a premise that is difficult to argue with."

Excuse me? It was *your* claim that the DLC selecting Hillary shows that I was wrong about Dem activists. It clearly shows no such thing.

[Jay Byrd]

"If she does, it shows the true impotence of "Democratic Activists" and suggests they should get themselves a new political party"

Yeah, right, they should join the Reform Party. Or the Citizen's Party. I find it just astounding folks like you and Marc have so little understanding of political dynamics and structures. Yes, the Dem activists are powerless, and no, they can't fix that by getting themselves a new party. But it's easy to blame them for their failures, while not being able to do any better yourselves.

"(either that or you were wrong about the monolithic distrust of Hillary Clinton)"

I didn't say anything about "monolithic distrust". Dem activists are a relatively *small* group; they aren't a "monolith". They remain a relatively small group because they lack power. And power is the means to more power. Life's not fair, y'know.

[Virgil Johnson]

I swear, you guys major in flicking ticks off the back of a hairy mad wart hog, as it eats out your sustenance! How sad. Minor adjustments for major problems....makes you want to quit trying. Incredible...