You can't argue with the SEIU's success in organizing, when it comes to sheer numbers: while most unions continue to suffer losses in members, SEIU has added nearly a million since he took over. This is in part thanks to the growth in service industry jobs as traditional union jobs such as manufacturing and construction continue to be outsourced or given to lower paid immigrants of questionable legal status, but in interests of fairness, you have to give Stern credit for emphasizing the unionization of new as well as expanded fields. Then again, the way he's gone about it has been part of the problem in the eyes of many critics.
The Nation has a long feature on the complex and intricate vision and personal leadership style of Stern. The way he has gone about extending representation to so many workers is a source of debate in labor circles, and one of the topics the article tackles:
More controversially, he believes the only way to reverse this sorry state of affairs is to sign up more members by just about any means necessary. Many within SEIU worry that this near-exclusive focus on growth is hampering the union's ability to serve its existing members; they observe that with more resources directed to organizing, and more emphasis on consolidating small locals into larger organizations, it's becoming harder for workers to find their union rep or file a simple grievance. If union members don't feel the union is serving them, organizers say, they begin to ask why they are paying dues.These are legitimate concerns, no doubt. There is always a delicate balance in working to represent more workers and actually effectively representing the ones you have, especially in an environment dominated by business and mostly toxic to unions (the Employee Free Choice Act, not coincidentally, would have helped more evenly split resources because it would make it easier for workers to join a union).
But the rift goes further than that, and in some ways embodies a main concern that many have with Stern: his seeming over friendliness to business (the article begins with an anecdote about unhappy workers that protested Stern's meeting with businesses, primarily Wal-Mart, to form an alliance to fight for better healthcare, a move many thought benefited Wal-Mart's PR efforts much more than it helped labor).
But there's an even more controversial aspect to Stern's commitment to "partnerships." In his book, Stern writes that unions should "add value" to companies and assist "employers in overcoming unnecessary legislative and political obstacles to their success." These ideas have played out in recent contracts. Internal memos -- obtained by SF Weekly -- show that two large SEIU locals had made a deal with a group of California nursing homes, in which SEIU agreed that workers would not speak out publicly against abuse of patients, or health code violations, and would lobby for limiting patients' right to sue. (SEIU later backed out of its commitment to tort reform.) In exchange, the union could organize a certain number of nursing homes without interference. The SF Weekly story was based in part on an internal report from one of the largest locals involved in the deal, United Healthcare Workers West (UHW-West).I think they went too far on this particular contract, but then I ask myself: does concessions now, in exchange for recognition of a union, mean better future contracts? It's hard to say, as one contract is often seen as a precedent for the next. That's something autoworkers are dealing with right now, after the UAW membership said yes the Delphi contract, with 66.7% of workers voting their approval.
As for the aforementioned healthcare issue, there is seemingly no bigger political issue for unions other than the bread and butter EFCA and globalization/outsourcing. Stern has been coy about his intentions, which also raises flags to some:
to be continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment