Jerry Brown on Andy Stern’s book
[Someone sent me a copy of this commentary on Andy Stern and his =
book. It’s by Jerry Brown - not the former governor of California, =
but the former head of 1199NE, an SEIU local in Connecticut that =
represents primarily nursing home workers - and was circulated among =
the union leadership earlier this year.]
Andy Stern’s new book deserves serious discussion and analysis by =
union members and leaders. I am not thinking about the parts of the =
book which discuss his personal journey through life and the labor =
movement or about his broad policy prescriptions for America. I am =
thinking about the descriptions of and prescriptions for the labor =
movement and most particularly for SEIU. While it is important to =
discuss the larger, public policy issues that Andy raises, we are not =
the only or the dominant voice in deciding those issues. We are, =
however, the dominant voice concerning the future of SEIU and a major =
voice concerning the future of the labor movement. This review, =
therefore, concentrates on the labor union issues.
The descriptions that Andy gives of the state of the labor movement =
and of SEIU in the past are on the money. If there was a polite way =
to say that the AFL-CIO needed fundamental change and was incapable =
of such change just by virtue of its basic structural flaws, then we =
should have said it politely and moved on. My only caveat about =
leaving the AFL was that the dispute was carried out in the pages of =
the New York Times, on 60 Minutes, etc. I don’t mean to imply that we =
could have or should have kept it secret, but only that we should not =
have hyped the story the way that we did.
The reason for not making out split such a public spectacle is that =
when all is said and done we still have much more in common with =
Steelworkers, Auto Workers, and other union folks than we do with any =
other groups in this society and this should have been emphasized in =
the book. While our alliances with progressive groups on social or =
political issues are extremely important to us [and I hope to them] =
our alliances with unions are based on a shared economic analysis and =
a common interest as workers in a society that undervalues and =
exploits workers here and around the world. In other words our =
solidarity should be natural for and with other union members in a =
way that is deeper than, for example, with the Sierra Club or even =
groups like the NAACP. It is a very deep disappointment to many of us =
that we fail often to measure up to the demands of solidarity, and =
this is caused in no small part by our own structures and our own =
failures in leadership. But we should not stop trying for that =
solidarity and instead substitute a romance with Move-On.org or with =
other such groups for unity in the labor movement.
These thoughts bring me to the main points in the book that needs =
discussion and analysis. Andy has identified real problems in our =
movement: shrinking membership, inability to compete with lower cost =
labor in the global economy, an unrequited love affair with the =
Democratic Party, a failure to build active and effective global =
alliances with other unions, an inability to relate to the needs of =
the new workforce that is often part time and contingent, a =
commitment to a system of pensions and health insurance which are =
employer based and are under constant attack. Like most of us, and =
most recently the Democratic Party, Andy finds it easier to detail =
the problems than to offer cogent solutions. But to his credit he =
does, in fact, prescribe solutions and it is here that he sometimes =
goes off track.
The main point of Andy’s “solution” is that unions should become =
partners and problem solvers with and for the employers, that we =
should help employers be more competitive rather than making them =
less so by driving up the costs of the organized sector and that =
unions should change their relationship with the members from one =
that leads to an almost pre-ordained struggle with management to one =
that provides services for individuals much as the AARP or the AAA =
do. This theme permeates the book and its practical applications are =
noted with pride. What is not explained is that the most successful =
cooperative efforts are the payoff for years of struggle, strikes and =
other conflicts with employers, conflicts that engaged many members =
and built strong membership organizations.
The “cooperative” relationship with Kaiser, the New York Hospital =
League and Catholic Healthcare West came about only after years of =
strikes, demonstrations, political activism, etc. Strong unions and =
engaged members can enter into mature, cooperative relationships with =
employers. In contrast SEIU recently has entered into cooperative =
relationships on an experimental basis with various nursing home =
chains and others. These alliances offer the employers the union’s =
political clout to raise reimbursement rates. In return, the employer =
“allows” the union to organize some facilities. In most cases the =
contract which will cover the employees (members?) is worked out in =
advance and denies the employees many of the basic workplace =
protections and rights that most traditional union contracts provide.
Some of these cooperative arrangements do not come after workers have =
organized and fought to improve their lives, or even simultaneously =
with such struggle. They are, without question, institutional peace =
pacts which establish a straight forward quid pro quo: the union’s =
political help in leveraging public money in return for the employers =
help in allowing the union to organize employees and collect dues. =
The possibility of the workers independently engaging in struggle is =
vigorously discouraged by the terms of the collective bargaining =
agreements or the underlying cooperation agreements. Unfortunately, =
some of these “alliances” are highlighted by Andy as examples of a =
new way of thinking about our role and mission.
Much of the recent history of SEIU is inspiring. For example, there =
is real genius in the Justice for Janitors strategy of organizing an =
entire market at one time by getting employers to agree to union =
standards only when a majority of the employers in the market do so. =
And wherever this strategy has worked real people; low wage and =
exploited, have created the public support necessary to force the =
building owners to acquiesce. Rallies, sit downs, arrests, marches, =
and even strikes have been necessary and effective. And to his credit =
Andy Stern has been a leader in these efforts.
Unfortunately, our approaches in other industries often do not =
involve the members at all until the employer allows us to see =
limited numbers of them after we deliver the employer some benefit =
like a Medicaid rate increase or an end to a campaign to highlight =
patient abuses or other nefarious behavior. And even when we are =
allowed to organize, unbeknownst to the members, there often is a =
pattern agreement or “template” in existence which hinders or even =
makes impossible the growth of a workplace organization that can make =
decisions for itself. We have to ask ourselves if these methods can =
produce a real, democratic workers organization or if it is more =
likely that they will produce a “membership” that is as alienated =
from the union leadership as it is from the employer. A “membership” =
that sees itself, correctly, as a third party in a relationship with =
union brokers and employers =96 the very antithesis of true rank and =
file unionism.
There is a real value to impatience with the labor movement, its =
stagnation and its backwardness. Many of us know the exhilarating =
feeling that comes with winning an organizing campaign or a strike or =
a breakthrough contract. If we examine those moments we will find one =
constant: they all involve lots of members engaged, taking ownership, =
believing in themselves and each other. Workers in motion to fight =
for themselves or others believe that they are the union and they act =
like it. Workers for whom we deliver goodies without struggle treat =
the union as a third party and are suspicious and removed. A =
membership organization is built on struggle and in our system some =
of that struggle is with the employer. I don’t think that we can =
ignore gravity if we study physics and I don’t think we can ignore =
the fundamental laws of our “free market’ system when we design our =
unions. One of those “laws” is that even well intentioned, sainted =
employers [if there are any] are compelled by the market to drive =
down the cost of labor in order to compete. Unless there is a =
countervailing force, competition will force labor costs down. This =
means that inevitably there will be conflict and that cooperation can =
only go so far. A mature union must be able to go either way and its’ =
members must be able to judge those situations and make decisions =
about them in a democratic way.
The need for workers to be able to make the fundamental democratic =
decisions about their jobs raises the issues of consolidation of =
unions into ever larger units, be they larger international unions, =
larger local or regional unions etc. If we are going to be in =
conflict larger is often better. It allows for more strike funds or =
political power. It allows for economies of scale which can translate =
into more organizing or political or campaign efforts, more =
researchers, lawyers etc. But how do we do this and still have =
workers make the crucial decisions in their own workplaces or in =
regional or national bargaining with their employer? How do we make =
sure there is real democracy in choosing and electing union =
officials? Andy continues to stress the importance of consolidation =
into industry-wide unions, larger local unions, regional unions, etc. =
He does not address the necessity of preserving effective democratic =
processes and these problems must be addressed if we really believe =
in the fundamental dignity of union members.
And one other issue raised by Andy as it affects SEIU but not as it =
affects the broader movement is the issue of corruption. SEIU under =
Andy has made great strides in rooting out obviously corrupt leaders =
who were allowed to prosper for many years under past SEIU =
leadership. But corruption takes many forms and it must be confronted =
and guarded against constantly. Full transparency of salaries, perks, =
Trust fund salaries, deferred compensation deals, multiple pensions =
etc. must be the norm, not the exception. Corruption in its many =
forms is all too common in our ranks. We often wink at it to get =
along. But when getting along means access to organizing subsidies or =
a place on the president’s executive board slate or other goodies for =
officials or their local unions, the temptation to keep quiet and =
mind your own business may be overwhelming. We need to be aware of =
these pressures and design ways to counter-balance them.
In conclusion, anyone who takes the time and effort to write and =
publish a book of ideas deserves a great deal of credit. In this =
case, credit and thanks because the ideas can and should lead to =
deeper discussion and understanding and to a bigger, better labor =
movement. I don’t think that Andy means for his ideas and conclusions =
to be the end of the discussion. He hopes, I am sure, that they =
encourage discussion and debate. Without a question that discussion =
and debate should take place at every level of SEIU.
Jerome P. Brown