|
Oregon Workers Unite |
|
|
|
Leadership Accountability
Here's
an excerpt of Stern at a panel on the subject at the Brooking Institute June 16th: But the truth is, we are way past incremental change. It is not going to work. As
the Institute of Medicine says and I think it applies here, your trying harder will not work; it is changing systems of care.
Well, I think the same thing is true about our health care system. It is not just trying harder. It is not just making incremental
changes. It is actually changing the system of health care, so that is designed to deal with all the other economic realities.
You can't apply a 20th Century health care system to a 21st Century economy.
Why SEIU's Andy Stern is Full of Shit Let's begin by asking a fair question. If SEIU President Andy Stern is such a shit hot labor leader, why the hell are so many SEIU members trying to get as far away from him and the SEIU as
they can? For the past few years, Stern has been setting himself up as the great
messiah of the American labor movement, coming to save mainstream labor from eternal damnation by advocating bigger unionism as a solution to the failure of big unionism.
The only problem is that the leaders of the mostly dead movement just won't let the messiah come but that hasn't stopped him
from proselytizing about his vision of unionism - an most undemocratic vision, where armies of workers are led by strong leaders to... wherever the hell the leaders want to go. While pitching his vision with the zeal of a missionary, Stern presents
the SEIU as a progressive, reform-oriented union and himself as a tech-savvy new age guy. He's even keeping a blog called
fightforthefuture, where he shares his thoughts with whoever's interested in them, frequently criticizing other union leaders while studiously
refraining from looking in the mirror himself. Dogs With A Bone
Stern's ideas about the "retooling" of labour have found favour with
the leaders of the democracy-challenged Carpenters, Laborers, Needletrades and Hotel Employees' unions. The capos of those
despotic outfits have even formed their own club, the New Unity Partnership (NUP) to advocate their vision of a bigger, stronger, more despotic labour movement run by - them. So far, Stern's efforts at bringing the AFL-CIO into his posse have fallen
flat and he's been getting really pissed off about that - to the point where he recently threatened to pull out of the AFL-CIO. But while Stern huffs and puffs and threatens to blow the American House
'o Labor down, SEIU members are trying to escape from his house. Big dog union leaders like Fido McCarron, Rover O'Sullivan and the recently conjoined Spot Wilhelm and Spike Raynor, who have been following Andy's scent like a bunch of hound dogs smelling a sexy bitch might bark at the audacious disloyalty
of those ungrateful SEIU members, but we expect as much from guys who get headaches thinking outside of their boxes. These dogs are panting at the prospect of being the generals in Andy's
army where they'll lead legions of machine heads who will lead the great army of labour to wherever-the-hell. Just like they
do today - only bigger! But that's the future that his bigness wants to create.
Let's talk about the present. Why are members running away from Andy Stern's great big utopian SEIU? The SEIU is undemocratic. Some SEIU members want real democracy in their union - the kind that's of, for and by the rank and file. They're just not sold
on the idea that handing their voices and their brains over to some self appointed guru who wants to run his union like a
business is going to serve their interests. There's just something about being "ruled" by some big dick and having to pay
for the privilege that grates on people. Consequently a lot of SEIU members have been trying to flee to the neighbors to escape
what passes for representation in the SEIU. Thousands Flee
In 2002 hundreds of San Francisco janitors rallied at two separate meetings
to discuss the possible decertification from SEIU Local 1877. On August 5, 2004 over 2,000 janitors voted on whether they
wanted to leave the SEIU and join the United Service Workers For Democracy Local 87. The decertification attempt was a major
embarrassment to President Stern as he advocated reform of the AFL-CIO. Fearing a loss in this important election, Stern rushed to San Francisco
to personally lobby janitors to vote to stay in the SEIU. He and his supporters warned the janitors that if they voted to
decertify SEIU Local 1877 no other AFL-CIO unions would support them and that they could lose their pension and healthcare
benefits. Behind the move to decertify was a lengthy battle between the SEIU International
and the membership of the San Francisco janitor's local which had been the focus of a legendary organizing drive in the 1990's. After inducting thousands of them into its progressive fold, the SEIU
pushed the elected local president out, placed the local in trusteeship and forced a merger with statewide SEIU Local 1877
onto the rank and filers. "The trusteeship and merger take away our precious democratic rights
and threaten our jobs and wages. Even though members overwhelmingly reject their actions, SEIU is forging ahead with its plan,"
said Richard Leung, who was ousted as president of Local 87 in the SEIU takeover. "All they care is to raise and collect our
union dues while they are busy making backroom deals with employers. As long as we remain in SEIU, we are forced to accept
their sellout plan." There was strong internal opposition from the workers themselves. Many
wanted a split from SEIU altogether. Richard Leung, Local 87 President ousted by the trusteeship, led the charge against the
merger with "bigger is better" local 1877. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against
the SEIU for threatening San Francisco janitors with the loss of their benefits. The threats, made in handbills and at meetings,
were aimed to discourage janitors from signing petitions to decertify SEIU and forming their own independent union. The NLRB
complaint alleged that SEIU is "restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
(National Labor Relations) Act in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act." In a further action, the NLRB issued another complaint against San Francisco's
largest janitorial contractor, Able Building Maintenance, for "rendering assistance and support" to the SEIU "by directing
its employees to meet, during work time, with representatives of SEIU International" in its campaign against USWD. The Board
found that Able Building Maintenance "has been rendering unlawful assistance and support to a labor organization in violation
of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act." That's
Andy Stern's union. This was SEIU Local 87: Local 87 Gets its Broom Dusted. In the fall of 2004 SEIU was to feel the effects of a major defeat. Service
Employees International Union Local 1877 was decertified for the vast majority of San Francisco janitors and a new, independent
union, United Service Workers for Democracy Local 87, was certified in its place. San Francisco janitors working for the largest contractors in the city
voted based upon petitions they presented to the NLRB requesting an election. The final tally was: 1,698 eligible voters (including part-time and temporary employees) 18 void ballots 121 challenged ballots 573 votes for SEIU Local 1877 947 votes for USWD Local 87 This was a major defeat for the SEIU. Why did the janitors run away? According to a report from The Socialist Worker: For their part, the janitors' defection was prompted in part by recent
concessionary contracts and by the heavy-handed intervention of the international union. In the last two years, the SEIU has
removed the elected leadership of the janitors' local, fired the staff, placed the local in trusteeship and forced the local
into a merger into the statewide janitors' Local 1877--all over the objections of the membership of Local 87 and without a
vote by the rank and file. Some of the janitors would continue to be represented by SEIU Local 1877
because their units didn't ask the NLRB for a vote, or the petitions did not have enough signatures to meet NLRB requirements. The strong-arm tactics that the SEIU used against Local 87 weren't unusual.
The SEIU pulled the same stunt at San Francisco Local 14, seizing control of the local and forcing a merger with Local 1877
even though the members voted against it. After the merger, SEIU 1877 signed a sweetheart contract allowing their employer
to replace workers making $17 an hour and full benefits with workers making $9 an hour and no benefits. In March 2004 91 percent of full-time employees in 21 counties signed a petition to de-certify Local 250 in favor of the new National Emergency Medical
Services Association. In July 2004, about two dozen emergency medical workers protested against
SEIU Local 250, for interfering with their right to choose another union. "They've used delaying tactics for at least five months," said Torren
Colcord, a paramedic in San Joaquin County and president of the National Emergency Medical Services Association, the new group
seeking to represent the workers. The SEIU fought back filing unfair labor charges and a lawsuit. In September 2004, the SEIU local narrowly averted decertification by nearly 2,400 employees of American Medical Response (AMR), a large national ambulance conglomerate. The escape attempt
pitted Local 250 against a newly formed National Emergency Medical Services Association (NEMSA). The NLRB election resulted in a draw, with the 660 workers voting for
the International Association of EMT's & Paramedics and 604 voting to go with the upstart NEMSA. Unknown to many members,
Local 250 signed a "service agreement" with the IAEP in August 2004 which enabled it to keep the members in its pocket. In Canada, who can forget the famous SEIU-CAW matter where, in 2000, some 30,000 SIEU members attempted to flee Andy's union to join the Canadian Auto Workers. Well over half
of them made it over the fence by the time the "matter" was settled (secretly, with an exchange of dollars). What prompted
them to flee? Huge unresponsive locals, crappy representation, employer-friendly deals and the promise of a dues hike and
more bigness (the merger of the existing big locals into a great big regional
undemocratic lump) on the horizon. An SEIU spokesthing called the CAW's decision to accept the fleeing members, "like stealing
your brother's children". Larger Pens and Taller Fences
So with members running away and paternalistic officials building better
fences, Stern pontificates about the need to build an army of labor and retool the U.S. labor movement based on the premise
that bigger is better. His own army will hit 1.8 million by the end of 2004. With all that bigness, he sees larger unions
as the as the answer to battling big corporations. Of course, Stern hasn't explained what the SEIU's current bigness has
accomplished for those 1.8 million members or why so many of them seem so damned intent on escaping from his union. Nor has
he had much to say about suggestions that a lot of the SEIU's current bloat has come from easy-to-organize public-sector workers
in home health aid and child care and not among the hard ass private-sector employers. From what we can tell, the answers to those questions lie in more bigness
- the new big national labor movement advocated by the New Unity Partnership - where existing union members would be herded
into 15 big centralized unions run by big strong men each of whom has a big designated turf (jurisdiction) to conquer. The NUP plan calls for lots of centralization, lots of streamlining,
lots of appointments from above--and it consciously advocates less union democracy. Stern recently wrote, "The purpose of
union structures is for workers to be able to unite, fight and win together, not make it easier or harder (to) elect or reelect
the leaders." Socialist Worker Andy Stern's labor movement will be just like the SEIU, only bigger, stronger and less democratic! The abject failure of the current crop of biggie unions to stop the rout
of our community by corporate interests and their dogs isn't a factor worth
considering. Neither is the suggestion that when workers elect their leaders, it's more likely that those leaders will represent
the workers' interests - thus making them stronger. That's one of those abstractions that Andy Stern doesn't have time for.
Notwithstanding the mountain of evidence that big unions are undemocratic unions and undemocratic unions are ineffective,
corrupt and run by idiots, Stern craps on the idea of union democracy. Here he is crapping on democracy from his fight for my future - oops, that's fight for your
future blog: Workers want their lives to be changed. They want strength and a voice,
not some purist, intellectual, historical, mythical democracy. Workers can win when they are united, and leaders who stand
in the way of change screaming "democracy" are failing to understand how workers exercise the limited power they have in a
country where only 8.2% of the private sector are in unions. They just don't get it! Stern recently made a commitment of $1 million to fund "a network of
workers and communities" to confront the dreaded Wal-Mart (which, according to House o' Labor rules is the ineffective, corrupt
United Food and Commercial Workers Union's turf). Is Stern looking to buy a bunch of lost souls - on the cheap? (A million
bucks is chump change for a man of his bigness.) What's Stern really after? Is his bigness trying
to poach on the UFCW's turf or is Stern just sniffing around Coco Hansen's butt? It's a Dog's Life
"I was disappointed,'' Stern said after a recent AFL-CIO gabfest, "that
we missed another opportunity to have an honest and frank discussion of how unions need to change in order to make sure that
we can impact workers.'' It's just as well. If the last several decades of labor history tell
us anything, it's that big undemocratic unions impact workers and keep impacting
them, over and over again, with crappy contracts, backroom deals, lousy representation and layers of loyal machine heads who
love the leader and dread the world outside the union office walls. Fortunately, Andy Stern's big NUP is never going to get off the ground.
He's pissed off too many other big dicks of labor to ever get the kind of support he needs to make it happen. At best he and
his posse will break off and form their own pile of dead wood which will spend most of its time pissing on the AFL-CIO's pile
of dead wood. While their respective leaders are busy arguing about whose is bigger,
the community of workers can move on. Originally published at http://www.ufcw.net The Enigma of Andy Stern (The fifth of six articles.) Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, has been spending a lot of quality time with the CEOs
of the largest Fortune 500 corporations, trying to convince them that a “partnership” with labor is a good deal
that can help them solve some of their persistent problems.
He made his partnership concept explicit in a speech he gave to a gathering of corporate lawyers in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico,
last February, where he said:
“SEIU’s goal for 2006 is to bring unions and employers together as partners, not enemies…Employers need
to recognize that the world has changed and there are people who would like to help them provide solutions in ways that are
new, modern and that add value to companies…A partnership between labor and corporations would be a step toward the
intended goal.”
Stern’s strong selling point was his proposal to eliminate employer contributions to health insurance and retirement
plans; if corporations were freed from these financial burdens, it would save them billions a year. As a further inducement,
Stern promised that unions would assist employers “in overcoming unnecessary legislative and political obstacles to
their success.”
Stern Has Become a Spokesman for Employers
In his new matchmaker role, Stern advises labor to do what it can to make U.S. companies more competitive abroad. Unions,
he says, “need to be aligned with employers’ market and industry structures and flexible enough to be good partners.”
He also says:
“We have to understand our employers live in an incredibly complicated world. Our job is to increase their ability
to succeed, to take certain responsibilities off of them, to assist them in some ideas like (passing) legislation, trying
to reduce workplace injuries and worker compensation costs.”
In Stern’s partnership model, there are obvious inducements for corporations, but no apparent ones for labor. Workers
are asked to make whatever concessions are necessary to keep a company competitive, but it is not at all clear what, if anything,
they get in return.
The logic of Stern’s partnership model is that there is no need for unions to engage in costly, time-consuming and
often unsuccessful organizing campaigns. A partnership deal, Stern believes, will enable union and employer representatives
to understand each others’ needs and work for the common good.
As smart and articulate as he is, Stern is not going to have an easy time persuading workers to embrace a partnership that
will obviously be controlled by employers and serve their interests. Workers can’t be happy when they read of record-breaking
corporate profits, while median income for households fell by over $2,500 from 2000 to 2004. Why, they might ask, is Stern
more solicitous about solving the problems of the employers than those of working people, whom he is supposed to represent?
Becoming Involved in the Global Labor Movement
Globalization has broadened Andy’s vision, and he now seems interested in playing a still-undefined role on the world
stage. He has taken five trips to China to try to get a first-hand grasp of what¹s going on in a country that is becoming
America¹s chief competitor. He has become a strong advocate of global unions. He says:
“National unions by their very nature are not built to have the strength to successfully address their members’
issues where they operate in only one country of a global employer. Global unions would have the reach and strength to get
the job done for workers everywhere.”
Stern has become involved with a global labor federation, Union Network International (UNI), with 15.5 million members
from 900 unions and 140 countries. An SEIU vice president now serves as the elected chair of one of UNI’s sectors, property
services, a sector consisting of cleaning and security workers.
However, UNI is dwarfed by a new global union, the International Confederation of Trade Unions (ICTU), founded on Nov.
1-3, that represents 166 million workers through its 309 affiliated organizations in156 countries. It will be difficult for
Stern to become an influential presence in world labor especially because he does not represent workers in manufacturing,
telecommunications and emerging technologies.
Meanwhile, Stern’s partnership campaign has come home to mock him. Chevron, whose oil profits have shattered its
127-year record, forced 1,700 Houston janitors, who averaged less than $30 a day, to go on strike for a month before Chevron’s
contractors would agree to give the workers, who clean its office buildings, a raise to $7.75 an hour — in the third
year of the contract. Family health-care coverage will become available to the janitors on Jan. 1, 2009 — at a cost
of $175 a month. (Wouldn’t it be great for a union to have a partnership with Chevron or Exxon Mobil?)
Employers Proposed Partnership Idea a Century Ago
In 1900, the National Civic Federation was created to prevent industrial conflict by bringing together the “reasonable”
leaders of industry and labor so they could settle their disputes around the conference table. Two years later, the federation
was put to a test, when the United Mine Workers went on strike with a demand for recognition, a wage increase and an eight-hour
workday. During the first two weeks of the strike, the coal operators commissioned 1,600 coal and iron police, and shortly
after, they began to advertise for strikebreakers.
In the end a presidential commission awarded the miners a 10 percent wage increase; and prohibited discrimination against
union members. And the National Civic Federation quietly died, after existing for only two years.
Andy Stern is a very knowledgeable labor leader. He can quote the various ways that employers use to intimidate their workers
from joining a union. He can cite statistics that describe the widening gap between rich and poor. He knows about how employers
used every means, including armed security guards, to try to block passage of such vital legislation as workers’ compensation,
Social Security, the 40-hour workweek, occupational safety and health protection. Knowing all this, how can Andy propose a
partnership, in which the primary function of the employees is to make the employer more competitive (and more profitable)?
Stern’s partnership proposals are not likely to win him the success he yearns for. Unions that have been taking a
beating from their powerful and resourceful employers are not likely to welcome a deal that fixes them into a servile position.
And why should employers want to join in a partnership with labor unless it gives them even more power over their workers?
Stern’s basic shortcoming is that he does not believe that the rank-and-file has any purposeful role in rebuilding
the labor movement. He believes that leaders like him are the self-propelling engines of progress, and he is supremely confident
in his own talent for leadership. Of course, he wants workers to enjoy a middle-class life and the American Dream, and he
has promised to get it for them, but without their participation.
Although Stern constantly employs populist rhetoric, he has made no noticeable effort to explain his ideas to workers in
other unions. He might not have had to quit the AFL-CIO if he had chosen to create a groundswell of support for his proposals
from union members across the country.
Andy has a strong admiration for the corporate style of leadership and marvels at its achievements. Like any CEO, he likes
to be in complete control of decision-making, demands loyalty and efficiency from his subordinates, and is impatient and even
actively intolerant of critical opinions.
To hold public attention to himself and his ideas, Stern has written(?) a new book with the quirky title, “A Country
That Works: Getting America Back on Track.” Is this what the labor movement has been waiting for?
The Enigma of Andy Stern (Final of six articles.) In October, just a month before the crucial 2006 elections, when Americans were heatedly debating what to do about Iraq,
Andy Stern, SEIU’s president, was spending the month in a nationwide tour of major cities to promote and sell his new
book, “A Country That Works: Getting America Back on Track.”
Indeed, his detached attitude about Iraq is contained in a single paragraph in the 183-page book. Here is the paragraph
(p. 101):
“Some wonder whether the army is to blame for the quagmire Iraq has become. Time has revealed that our political
leaders rushed to war in Iraq without a plan and enough troops to secure peace‹over the objections of many in the military,
as some former generals have revealed. If the Iraq fiasco was the outcome of ineffective planning, then my guess is that the
army will evaluate their planning process and make any necessary changes.”
On the book’s front cover, in large type, is the statement: “Something’s Wrong With a Country That Helps
the Rich Get Richer While Most Americans Get the Squeeze.” It’s a catchy, populist comment, but nowhere in the
book does Stern offer any clues as to how the gap between rich and poor can be narrowed.
Stern cites numerous statistics to dramatize economic inequality. An example:
“Median pay for the CEOs of the top one hundred largest companies rose fully 25 percent to $17.9 million from 2004
to 2005. The typical worker s’ pay increased only 3 percent.”
Stern’s shocking data in the opening chapter are not new; they are the meat and bones of populist politicians and
social reformers. But unlike them, Stern does not hold Corporate America responsible for the widening economic and social
inequality, nor does he consider it a target for reform.
Labor leaders do not write books about themselves or their ideas. So why did Stern? One obvious reason: to keep himself
in the public eye; to maintain his newfound celebrity status. Stern says: “My purpose in writing this book is to help
galvanize the forces of change.” More to the point, the book presents Stern’s plan for “Getting America
Back on Track.”
It also serves as a memoir, providing insights into Stern’s personality and private life as a devoted father to his
two children, Matt and Cassie. It contains an interesting account of how Stern rose from a social case-worker who joined the
Pennsylvania Social Service Union at age 23 to become president of the Service Employees International Union in a career that
spanned more than 30 years in the same union.
Although he was unsuccessful and appeared naïve in trying to persuade AFL-CIO leaders to adopt his restructuring reforms,
Andy dismisses critics who say he acted rashly and unwisely in seceding and setting up a rival federation. In defending his
actions, Stern says:
“When it became clear that reform within the AFL-CIO was stalled, SEIU’s leaders realized that it was irresponsible
to just stand by and watch the living standards of American workers decline. It was time to walk down a different road.”
(Stern’s creation, Change to Win, has accomplished very little thus far.)
Stern insists that organized labor has to make radical changes in the new era of globalization, where “American manufacturers
have access to a worldwide hiring hall, with unprecedented numbers of available workers virtually lined up at their doors,
ready to work for low wages and paltry benefits.”
He wants workers and their unions to understand that even the biggest employers have problems, and that labor should join
them in “partnerships” to make them more competitive in the global marketplace. Specifically, Stern favors eliminating
employer contributions on health care and pensions to enable them to compete more effectively. (The financial burden would
shift to the employees, until, hopefully, there would be remedial legislation.
So what should labor be doing about it? Stern says it should do what it can to make U.S. companies more competitive. Unions,
he says, “need to be aligned with employers’ market and industry structures and flexible enough to respond to
ever-changing employer dynamics and competent enough to be good partners.” Stern adds, approvingly, that unions should
assist employers “in overcoming unnecessary legislative and political obstacles to their success.”
This kind of partnership is not going to be an easy sell in any democratic union, especially since it is not at all clear
what workers get for their subservience to employers. How can workers embrace a company that cuts health care and pensions
and is tight-fisted at the negotiating table?
There is a schizoid quality that permeates the book and creeps into Stern’s value system. On the one hand, he sympathetically
describes the hardships and woes of most working class families. He notes that productivity from 2001 to 2003 increased 11.7
percent, while median income grew only 1.6 percent. But later on, he wants workers to become more productive to increase their
employers’ competitiveness.
Stern presents a series of shocking statistics of how employers intimidate workers from joining a union. He cites a Cornell
research report that states:
“Every 23 minutes a worker is fired or discriminated against for his or her support of a union.” And also.
“Eight of ten employers (82 percent) hire high-priced union-busting consultants to fight union organizing drives. But
he still wants workers to join partnerships, specifically designed to help their employers.” (Does that make sense?)
In the final chapter, titled “A Plan for a Country That Works,” Stern offers his “opinions” about
his plan for change. He says:
“Most of the ideas are not really new and, in fact, are not mine at all. But they share two characteristics: First,
they can work, and some are working already; second, they are not pipe dreams, but are both practical and principled.”
Stern’s plan is not a blueprint, but consists of his recommendations on six uncoordinated topics: taxes, health care,
retirement, the Internet “highway,” education and skills training. There is no mention of foreign affairs, trade,
immigration, the military, poverty, worker rights and other issues of national concern. Moreover, many of Stern’s proposals
boil down to a “wish list,” because they haven’t been tested in the real world of special interests, lobbyist
payoffs, political deals and negative advertising.
On taxes, Stern sides with those who want the cap on the payroll tax lifted, so that people who earn more than the current
limit of $94,200 would have to pay more taxes on their income. Stern would like the FICA tax applied not only to wages, but
to dividends, capital gains, stock options and interest.
Stern encourages employers to eliminate the health-care benefit that millions of workers are now enjoying as a result of
negotiations by their unions. He says: “It is in the economic self-interest of American business, now competing globally,
to end employer-based care.” He favors universal health care, but not the single-payer system advocated by many unions.
He notes several government models that might be acceptable, including an expanded Medicare.
Stern also recommends that employers stop providing their workers with a guaranteed level of retirement income. He says:
“Only about 34 million workers today are covered by defined benefit pensions‹just under a quarter of the U.S.
workforce.” Andy comes up with a patchwork of retirement proposals, including giving all children $1,000 at birth, “which
is invested in an account earning 8% for 70 years” and would create a nest egg of $218, 606.41.
Every child should become knowledgeable about the computer and be able to utilize the advantages of the “Internet
highway,” Stern says, explaining: “In a global economy, the basis of commerce is no longer just the transfer of
goods; it’s the transfer of information.”
Stern wants the U.S. to have a world-class education system. He says: “An adequate education system for the twenty-first
century must include universal pre-kindergarten, beginning at the age of four. Or better yet, why not at the age of two?”
There’s a strong suspicion that Stern is using his book as a vehicle to build a reputation as an outstanding national
planner for the future of America. He says: “I invite feedback and heated debate with all comers — workers, students,
business executives, union members and leaders, association directors and politicians Go to "http://acountrythatworks.com">acountrythatworks.com
and tell me what you think."
And listen to this:
“I do not have detailed calculations of the costs of what I’ve proposed, but I invite policy makers to let
me know what they think. Let’s get the figures on the table and then the American public will be able to decide if these
programs are worth the costs.”
Notice how slick Stern is in self-promotion as a national authority on legislative reform. He can keep himself in the limelight
through his Web site and a variety of activities. He can sponsor conferences with well-known economists as speakers; set up
a blue-ribbon commission with an elite board of directors. He could publish studies and surveys, issue press releases, appear
on radio and TV and do whatever else was needed to keep him close to center stage and on good terms with the power brokers.
No worries about money. The SEIU would supply a good part of the funding.
In the book’s three-page conclusion, there is not the slightest reference to workers or their unions or any comment
about labor’s future. Stern sounds like an invited celebrity delivering a college commencement address. Here are a couple
of samplers of his high-flown rhetoric:
“Americans should pause and take the time to appreciate the glory and grandness of our future…No single generation
has ever been offered such possibilities; we should seize them with passion and zest.”
“My hope is that future history books will write about this time and say, At the dawning of a new century, America’s
leaders came forward, Americans lifted their voices and became the wind that sailed America to a new future.”
And Stern’s final exhortation: “It is time for people from all walks of life to ask themselves what we can
do for our country, because in our hearts, we know our country needs our help. I am ready to help America. Are you?”
* * * * * Andy is caught up in a tangle of problems and possibilities. Does he have any future in the labor movement except as SEIU
president? Has he compromised his standing with working people by being too friendly with corporations? What if very few unions
buy into his Partnership proposal? Can he figure out a proper role for himself in the global labor movement? If he tries to
develop a new career as a national reformer, what opposition will he face? How long does he expect to remain SEIU president?
What does he really want? What about his personal life? And what is his American Dream?
How Stern answers this mix of questions in his own mind may determine how he reinvents himself into a new type of leader.
No one, not even Stern, is sure of the answer.
End of Series of Six Articles
—————————————————————————————————
Harry has given
us permission to reproduce some of his excellent writing in pursuit of member-run, democratic union. For more
about him and his excellent crusade for member democracy, be sure to follow the link below. For more labor articles and background material,
visit Harry's Web site: www.laboreducator.org. Harry Kelber's e-mail address is: hkelber@igc.org. |
|||||||||||||
