One of the many reporters covering the AFL-CIO�s "50th Anniversary Convention" commented on its conclusion: "well, it's ended here, but it's just beginning out there!" He waved with his hand as if fanning a far horizon. His point was clear: now the rupture in top labor�s ranks precipitated by the breakaway of several large unions at the start of the week was coursing its way to the union base. Open fault lines would now appear in subordinate labor bodies in states, cities, and towns all over the country.

For most of the delegates from those widespread locations, already on the front lines of the sustained attack by corporate capital and its government accomplices, the week has raised more questions than it has answered. Despite an attempt to conduct a "business-as-usual" convention, the events of the week overall have clearly rattled the Federation from top to bottom. Faced with the sudden loss of one-third of its affiliate membership base, a severe dues income dip, and the expected creation of a competing federation of the breakaway unions, this probably looked like the week from hell to AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and his remaining administration.

Among the Convention's last morning's unfinished business was what some had hoped would be a full debate on the controversial role of the AFL-CIO American Center for International Solidarity (ACILS). Now called the Solidarity Center for short, the ACILS has over the years received significant monies from the U.S. Government�s National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The National Endowment for Democracy is cited by critics for its "dubious history, having been deployed frequently to promote U.S. government foreign policy objectives, including assisting in overthrowing democratically elected governments and interfering in the internal affairs of the labor movements of other countries.� Such an unprecedented open debate was not to be. In its place, by use of arbitrary Resolution Process rules, was an administration-backed resolution which under those rules represented the final and only resolution to be voted on the matter of the AFL-CIO's Solidarity Center.

The administration's resolution to protect and perpetuate its Solidarity Center made no mention of the NED funding or any of the alleged improper activities in other countries over the years. The floor discussion on that resolution was a textbook in controlling debate. In fact there was no debate. Each of the recognized speakers worked from a carefully prepared script and played up such things as the more recent role of the Solidarity Center in the dispersal of funds to African labor contacts to fight the "devastating effects of HIV/AIDS."

One speaker, a high-ranking national union vice-president, even reminisced enthusiastically about the AFL-CIO role in the conduct of the "Cold War." It was a throw-back moment. The vote was taken on the resolution without a speaker having been recognized to offer an opposing view. One delegate who had supported a resolution which would have banned the Solidarity Center from taking NED grants noted that "in the wake of the millions being lost to the Federation's treasury by the split, shutting off the State Department's funding spigot never had a chance anyway!"

In the brighter-moment category, withdrawn Executive Council candidate Harry Kelber was given his negotiated opportunity to address the Convention for a few minutes (he pushed the envelope on his allotted time). Harry "thanked Brother Sweeney" and commented on the fact that if he had run as announced, he would have had absolutely no chance of winning and by negotiating for "these few minutes" felt "he had made a good deal." He drew laughter and applause on that remark.

Brother Kelber then gave the Convention something seldom heard the entire week, pointed but constructive criticism. He noted that, in his view, "the [rank and file] members don't have the slightest idea of what you're doing." He went on to contend that the leadership lacked a real "vision of a labor movement and a vision of society for our children and grandchildren." He offered additional observations on the lack of democracy in unions and the AFL-CIO at this time, and other changes that he felt should be made. He ended by stating, "I am committed to this labor movement!" He received a standing ovation. It was a rare, almost poignant, moment in a week of sobering and ominous events for the delegates.

A Key Question: What's Going to Happen Back Home?

Throughout the week, leaders from the State Federations and particularly leaders from the Central Labor Councils (CLCs) across the country were holding ad hoc meetings and engaging in small-group discussions about the anticipated problems the fracture in the labor movement would produce. There was a clear sense of urgency and concern among that broad group of delegates. It is this layer of the labor movement, in cities and communities large and small, where the real work of the labor movement, outside the individual workplaces, gets done.

Typically, CLCs represent the second line of defense when workers in a specific union are under attack in contract disputes, particularly when strikes, lockouts, or extreme employer behavior raise the profile of the struggle. They can, and the best of them do, represent the solidarity face of all labor when workers in their area are under attack. When they function as they should, they are the bridge between community support for struggling workers and they play a central role in building coalitions to fight against today's rising tide of federal and state public policy takeaways concerning Medicaid protections and others. The CLCs are a critical terminal in funding, and recruiting the foot soldiers for, the "voter registration" drives and the "get-out-the-vote" efforts in elections.

The disaffiliation of major unions from the national AFL-CIO, and the forming of a new federation (the Change-to-Win coalition plan) will impact virtually every CLC and State Federation in the country. Where the confrontation in Chicago left that situation, based on the stated position of the feuding factions, is still unclear. The Change-to-Win unions took the position that they would continue to affiliate and pay dues to the state and local bodies. The AFL-CIO leadership has rejected that option, declaring that exclusive Subordinate Body affiliation is barred to non-national affiliates (even though that rule has been unevenly enforced in the past).

The delegates of a fractured national labor movement are now back home where the split could have the most profound effect. The impact may vary widely from place to place, depending on a number of factors, starting with the relative amount of per capita dues (the amount paid per member by CLC participating unions) that could be lost by a hard rule that CTW unions can not participate in State or Local Councils.

Already, I understand that some CLCs have voted to not allow participation of, or accept dues from, CTW unions. Others are reputedly planning to ignore national AFL-CIO directives and continue on as before. Another option under discussion is the creation of "parallel organizations" to carry out certain joint activities and provide mutual fund pooling for specific projects or activities. Similarly, there are in many communities auxiliary organizations like Jobs with Justice coalitions (consisting of labor, community, religious activists and organizations), and other labor supported formations that work on specific issues and community concerns. These could grow in importance if local labor organizations want to continue to project a united front.

Today, unionists in communities everywhere are wrestling with these questions. While these are unwelcome developments to most local leaders, they could, of necessity, be forced to come up with a new degree of resourcefulness and innovation. That possibility has started a discussion among a growing network of progressive union activists who are calling for a renewed outreach to rank-and-file members and local union activists at the community level. Ideas, long forgotten, like "working people's assemblies" and area shop steward councils and class oriented labor/community education conferences are resurfacing.

Fracture or no fracture, the relentless corporate offensive against workers everywhere requires new strategies. The breakup of monopoly unionism, even one precipitated by the barons of the bureaucracy with similarly anemic agendas could force a sinking labor movement to rediscover its greatest strength -- its membership and its larger social constituency.

-- Postscript: as we post, it is now known that the Change-to-Win unions plan a September 27th founding Convention in Cincinnati for their affiliates to formalize the new labor federation under that banner. It may or may not be progress, but it continues to produce more news coverage than labor has had in years.

_____________________