In light of the attacks to its relevancy and in preparation for the July convention and elections, the AFL-CIO issued its own statement in April and June of 2005, the federation published “Winning for Working Families; Recommendations from the Officers of the AFL-CIO for Uniting and Strengthening the Union Movement” (available online at aflcio.org).

Similar to the SEIU, the federation’s plan calls for an increased focus on organizing and “an aggressive non partisan approach to politics and legislation” (P. 5 of the plan). Also, just like the SEIU plan, the AFL-CIO calls for a stoppage of “the Wal-Marting of good jobs by major corporations”  P. 9. However, as a whole, this plan is really weak.

For example, over the course of the report’s 27 pages, the AFL-CIO congratulates itself for its accomplishments over the years, yet admits that it and the union movement continue to lose ground. More specifically, on page 2 of a cover letter to the plan, authored by the federation’s three highest ranking officers, they boast that “[i]n 2000, voters from union households represented 26 percent of the overall vote ‘compared with 23 percent in 1996 and 19 percent in 1992’ with even higher proportions in key battleground states.”  Yet, the federation backed losing presidential candidates in 2000 and 2004 (Gore and Kerry respectively). The federation even acknowledges the losses, and their officers state “that the American labor movement’s growing political effectiveness could not compensate for its loss of membership density.” So, the upswing in union represented households during the past two presidential elections are Pyrrhic victories.

Furthermore, the final nine pages of the plan is a summary piece titled “Major Changes in the AFL-CIO 1996-2005.”  The federation spends nine pages talking about how great it is despite the decline in the number of union represented employees in the private sector and how ineffective they’ve been at politics and organizing.

The AFL-CIO’s plan has little in specifics or substance for dealing with the declining percentage of the unionized workforce in the private sector. Moreover, the plan comes across more as a plea for sticking with the status quo and avoiding change. Another example of this is the issue of racial, ethnic, religious and gender diversity.

On pages 15-16 of its plan, the federation proposes to “develop plans to achieve targeted levels by the 2009 Convention,” and “[a]sk affiliated national unions to sign a set of diversity principles ….” I’m not sure why it’s necessary to wait until 2009. The choice of this date is never explained by the federation. Additionally, the signing of “diversity principles” as well as the four year wait seems like a calculated move to maintain the status quo because prejudice within the labor movement has been a long running issue and has significantly contributed to labor’s sorry state.

Moreover, apparently in defense of their union and perhaps the status quo, the federation has published “A Comparison of Winning for Working Families, A Proposal by the AFL-CIO Officers with Restoring the American Dream, A Proposal by Four Unions.” It appears that the purpose of this document is to show that the AFL-CIO and its four dissidents have much in common and much to lose should the federation break apart later this month.

Another AFL-CIO affiliate has issued its own reform proposal, and frankly it has done a great job. The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) published a report on January 3, 2005 titled “AFL-CIO: Changing for the Future.” Over the course of ten-plus pages, the IAFF discusses in detail ways to reform the AFL-CIO without breaking it up. Included are nonpartisan political strategies, and adjusting to the changing demographics of the American and global workforce and workplace. For the sake of brevity, I won’t analyze the plan; if you want to check it out, it’s available on the web at unitetowin.org.

It’s evident from the number of reports recently published that there is tremendous concern in the American labor movement, at least in the private sector, is dying, and that globally, there is uncertainty how to expand the movement. I believe that it’s too late.

My next and final post in this series, will discuss the continued decline of the labor movement.