---

Posted by: Dan Clawson (UMass Amherst)
Posted on: May 05, 2008 - 18:06

Unions, Democracy, Academics, and the Real World by Dan Clawson

[note these are my thoughts-experiences; others will have very different views, and I hope they put them up here, including vigorously contesting anything I write here]

 Most academics are used to being ignored.  What happens if suddenly everyone is paying attention and our views are being widely disseminated?  What if they actually matter and might influence outcomes in labor union debates? The answer, for many leading labor researchers, is that things might look different.

 I am one of the people who organized a letter to Andy Stern, president of SEIU, urging him not to place the 140,000 member California UHW "local" into trusteeship.  The letter [on this site], signed by an invited group of over 100 people, including Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, as well as many of the leading labor researchers, was sent to Stern on May 1, and late in the afternoon of May 2 he sent a response.  Then on Saturday May 3 the letter was run as a half-page ad in the New York Times, without informing any of the signers in advance.  At that point national SEIU leaders became very unhappy, as did some of those who had signed the letter.  I understand that SEIU is preparing another, and probably much sharper, response.

 This situation has raised numerous issues, and led to a flurry of letters among the signers, some of whom are very concerned (and perhaps unhappy), and some of whom are delighted.   Here's an attempt to lay out some of those issues, and to invite comment.

 1.  INTERNAL UNION POLITICS

 Many people in labor feel that no one outside the union should get involved in issues of internal union politics.  The 100+ signers wrote to President Stern "Putting UHW under trusteeship would send a very troubling message and be viewed, by many, as a sign that internal democracy is not valued or tolerated within SEIU.  In our view, this would have negative consequences for the workers directly affected, the SEIU itself, and the labor movement as a whole." 

 I can understand the view that only the workers involved should make decisions about their union, but I believe that all of us have a stake in what happens in the labor movement, and that although we should be cautious about getting involved in union internal politics, all of us have an obligation to speak up for the labor movement's core values – and democracy is one such value.  If a union is racist, or sexist, or anti-immigrant, we wouldn't say we can't address the issue.  Similarly, if there are concerns about internal democracy, we can and should say so.  Taking a stand can lead to messy situations (see below), but that doesn't mean we can sit out the key contests and avoid discussing the pressing issues.

 2.  AUDIENCE 

 It is one thing to write a letter and circulate it within labor circles; it is something significantly different to bring it to the attention of a wider world.  Disputes that can be argued about within a family or small group look very different when shared with the wider world. 

 As far as I know, none of those who signed the letter knew in advance that it would appear as an advertisement in the New York Times.  I learned of the ad in an outraged email from someone I know in SEIU, and the appearance of the ad definitely changed SEIU's reaction.  One of the signers wrote me:  "I was really taken aback by the ad's appearance.  My first thought was that I had not been paying sufficient attention to your email.  Now that I know an ad was never mentioned I am royally pissed off.  I would NOT have signed a letter if I had known it was going to be in the NYTimes.  I have strong feelings about not airing our differences in such a public forum." 

 Others feel that "If something is an open letter it is...open.  That is, it is public."  Once the letter was public, and circulated through email, and available to the press had they been interested (none were), then it is public, and it makes no difference whether it appears on an obscure web site and is seen only by labor academics and union activists, or whether it appears as an ad in our nation's most prestigious newspaper, read by the enemies of labor as well as by those within the broad house of labor. No one wrote me to object to the letter being sent out by UALE over its listserv, so the issue is not that something was public, but rather HOW public it was, and public to whom. 

 3.  ADVANCE NOTICE AND FAIR WARNING

 As one of the organizers, had I known the letter might appear as an ad in the NY Times, I would definitely have so informed anyone I asked to sign, because that information might have influenced their decision.  I at least actively sought out people who had worked with SEIU, and who had the respect of SEIU, because I wanted signers who would be taken seriously.  The point was to get SEIU to recognize that many of their friends, people who admire SEIU and all it has accomplished, feel that this issue has the potential to harm SEIU.  Speaking out on the issue is not intended to harm SEIU, but to make it stronger, more effective, and a better voice for its workers.

 Many of those who signed the letter agonized about their decision to do so, wanting to send a message to SEIU but not wanting to do anything that could harm the union or its workers.  In making this decision they undoubtedly weighed many factors, but thinking about the audience for which it was intended was one of them.  I don't think anyone signed believing the letter would go only to Andy Stern, but I also don't think a single person envisioned it being a big ad in the New York Times.

 4. PRESSURE ANALOGY

 Here's one of the stronger but more thought-provoking points made to me:  What happened with the letter is analogous to what happens in many union organizing campaigns.  People sign statements, having been told that they are public statements, but "When the union committee first surfaces and goes public with a leaflet, newsletter, petition, we're "Voting Yes" lit statement with everyone's name on--guess what happens, without fail?  Someone feels the heat from the boss or their friendly departmental 
supervisor and says:  (in some variation of the following): "I've been tricked, manipulated, used by the union. I never gave them permission to use my name on anything or [less frequently and more honestly], I've changed my mind and am not voting yes." 

 The argument is that this is an analogous situation, and that many of those who signed the letter have been getting calls by people in SEIU pressuring them to change their position or express their reservations.  I think it's clear many people have been called by SEIU leaders, but my sense is that the aim has not been pressure but rather dialogue – and that's a good thing.    

 The union organizing analogy breaks down, it seems to me, because a good organizer makes sure workers know that their name will be made public.  For the letter to Andy Stern, we were open about the fact that the letter would be public, that once it was out on email anything could happen to it, but we never expected SUCH high visibility as a NY Times ad, and definitely did not caution people about that.

 5.  OTHER ISSUES

 People in SEIU (and not only them) have said to me:  Why just this issue?  The labor movement needs a much wider debate.  There are real issues about what it means to represent only the interests of a smaller and smaller number of union members, and whether the progressive position is to focus only on what is best for them, or do we need a larger vision of how to enroll the 90% of workers who are not in unions.  Once we take those issues seriously, they argue, the picture becomes more complicated, and a variety of forms of trade-off are necessary.  What's best for the people in a particular local may not be what is best for the working class as a whole.

 I'd agree with the point:  But I'd also insist that it is necessary to educate, involve, and persuade workers that this larger vision is necessary.  It doesn't make sense to impose it from above.  If workers believe the labor movement has a broader vision, and is acting on it, and is truly trying to build greater power for all workers, I'm convinced they can and will support that program.  If leaders try to impose that on workers, and act as if only the leaders understand this point, I think we are heading for trouble.

 I hope that the letter, and the controversy around it, and the issues raised by UHW and by SEIU's response, lead to a much needed debate in the labor movement.  I hope others will weigh in here now.

 

 

---

Posted by: Dan Clawson (UMass Amherst)
Posted on: May 05, 2008 - 18:05

Unions, Democracy, Academics, and the Real World by Dan Clawson

[note these are my thoughts-experiences; others will have very different views, and I hope they put them up here, including vigorously contesting anything I write here]

 Most academics are used to being ignored.  What happens if suddenly everyone is paying attention and our views are being widely disseminated?  What if they actually matter and might influence outcomes in labor union debates? The answer, for many leading labor researchers, is that things might look different.

 I am one of the people who organized a letter to Andy Stern, president of SEIU, urging him not to place the 140,000 member California UHW "local" into trusteeship.  The letter [on this site], signed by an invited group of over 100 people, including Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, as well as many of the leading labor researchers, was sent to Stern on May 1, and late in the afternoon of May 2 he sent a response.  Then on Saturday May 3 the letter was run as a half-page ad in the New York Times, without informing any of the signers in advance.  At that point national SEIU leaders became very unhappy, as did some of those who had signed the letter.  I understand that SEIU is preparing another, and probably much sharper, response.

 This situation has raised numerous issues, and led to a flurry of letters among the signers, some of whom are very concerned (and perhaps unhappy), and some of whom are delighted.   Here's an attempt to lay out some of those issues, and to invite comment.

 1.  INTERNAL UNION POLITICS

 Many people in labor feel that no one outside the union should get involved in issues of internal union politics.  The 100+ signers wrote to President Stern "Putting UHW under trusteeship would send a very troubling message and be viewed, by many, as a sign that internal democracy is not valued or tolerated within SEIU.  In our view, this would have negative consequences for the workers directly affected, the SEIU itself, and the labor movement as a whole." 

 I can understand the view that only the workers involved should make decisions about their union, but I believe that all of us have a stake in what happens in the labor movement, and that although we should be cautious about getting involved in union internal politics, all of us have an obligation to speak up for the labor movement's core values – and democracy is one such value.  If a union is racist, or sexist, or anti-immigrant, we wouldn't say we can't address the issue.  Similarly, if there are concerns about internal democracy, we can and should say so.  Taking a stand can lead to messy situations (see below), but that doesn't mean we can sit out the key contests and avoid discussing the pressing issues.

 2.  AUDIENCE 

 It is one thing to write a letter and circulate it within labor circles; it is something significantly different to bring it to the attention of a wider world.  Disputes that can be argued about within a family or small group look very different when shared with the wider world. 

 As far as I know, none of those who signed the letter knew in advance that it would appear as an advertisement in the New York Times.  I learned of the ad in an outraged email from someone I know in SEIU, and the appearance of the ad definitely changed SEIU's reaction.  One of the signers wrote me:  "I was really taken aback by the ad's appearance.  My first thought was that I had not been paying sufficient attention to your email.  Now that I know an ad was never mentioned I am royally pissed off.  I would NOT have signed a letter if I had known it was going to be in the NYTimes.  I have strong feelings about not airing our differences in such a public forum." 

 Others feel that "If something is an open letter it is...open.  That is, it is public."  Once the letter was public, and circulated through email, and available to the press had they been interested (none were), then it is public, and it makes no difference whether it appears on an obscure web site and is seen only by labor academics and union activists, or whether it appears as an ad in our nation's most prestigious newspaper, read by the enemies of labor as well as by those within the broad house of labor. No one wrote me to object to the letter being sent out by UALE over its listserv, so the issue is not that something was public, but rather HOW public it was, and public to whom. 

 3.  ADVANCE NOTICE AND FAIR WARNING

 As one of the organizers, had I known the letter might appear as an ad in the NY Times, I would definitely have so informed anyone I asked to sign, because that information might have influenced their decision.  I at least actively sought out people who had worked with SEIU, and who had the respect of SEIU, because I wanted signers who would be taken seriously.  The point was to get SEIU to recognize that many of their friends, people who admire SEIU and all it has accomplished, feel that this issue has the potential to harm SEIU.  Speaking out on the issue is not intended to harm SEIU, but to make it stronger, more effective, and a better voice for its workers.

 Many of those who signed the letter agonized about their decision to do so, wanting to send a message to SEIU but not wanting to do anything that could harm the union or its workers.  In making this decision they undoubtedly weighed many factors, but thinking about the audience for which it was intended was one of them.  I don't think anyone signed believing the letter would go only to Andy Stern, but I also don't think a single person envisioned it being a big ad in the New York Times.

 4. PRESSURE ANALOGY

 Here's one of the stronger but more thought-provoking points made to me:  What happened with the letter is analogous to what happens in many union organizing campaigns.  People sign statements, having been told that they are public statements, but "When the union committee first surfaces and goes public with a leaflet, newsletter, petition, we're "Voting Yes" lit statement with everyone's name on--guess what happens, without fail?  Someone feels the heat from the boss or their friendly departmental 
supervisor and says:  (in some variation of the following): "I've been tricked, manipulated, used by the union. I never gave them permission to use my name on anything or [less frequently and more honestly], I've changed my mind and am not voting yes." 

 The argument is that this is an analogous situation, and that many of those who signed the letter have been getting calls by people in SEIU pressuring them to change their position or express their reservations.  I think it's clear many people have been called by SEIU leaders, but my sense is that the aim has not been pressure but rather dialogue – and that's a good thing.    

 The union organizing analogy breaks down, it seems to me, because a good organizer makes sure workers know that their name will be made public.  For the letter to Andy Stern, we were open about the fact that the letter would be public, that once it was out on email anything could happen to it, but we never expected SUCH high visibility as a NY Times ad, and definitely did not caution people about that.

 5.  OTHER ISSUES

 People in SEIU (and not only them) have said to me:  Why just this issue?  The labor movement needs a much wider debate.  There are real issues about what it means to represent only the interests of a smaller and smaller number of union members, and whether the progressive position is to focus only on what is best for them, or do we need a larger vision of how to enroll the 90% of workers who are not in unions.  Once we take those issues seriously, they argue, the picture becomes more complicated, and a variety of forms of trade-off are necessary.  What's best for the people in a particular local may not be what is best for the working class as a whole.

 I'd agree with the point:  But I'd also insist that it is necessary to educate, involve, and persuade workers that this larger vision is necessary.  It doesn't make sense to impose it from above.  If workers believe the labor movement has a broader vision, and is acting on it, and is truly trying to build greater power for all workers, I'm convinced they can and will support that program.  If leaders try to impose that on workers, and act as if only the leaders understand this point, I think we are heading for trouble.

 I hope that the letter, and the controversy around it, and the issues raised by UHW and by SEIU's response, lead to a much needed debate in the labor movement.  I hope others will weigh in here now.

 

 

---

Posted by: letter ()
Posted on: May 05, 2008 - 17:44

The full list of names can be found here:

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/seiu050508.html

---